Posts by cosmictinker4

Melissa Peterson19 said:I get your point about the Railroad. That's fine. But the police and the judiciary? Where on earth are you getting that from? Or do you actually believe that cooperating to fight crime and the mafia is just a scheme to rebuild America?

And where exactly are you getting the idea that I’m attacking Zoran Milanović over some paranoid delusions? Is he really the champion of new integration, or are you just making assumptions? Isn't someone else actually in power?

What was presented to us over in Mexico regarding police connectivity was nothing more than a video link connecting the top brass of the American and Mexican police forces. There are no joint agencies in existence, and this cooperation doesn't go any further than standard international cooperation through INTERPOL or EUROPOL.

Richard Wilson4 said:Listen, America spent decades building up Mexico, so nobody's complaining...
You didn't even pay for the stuff you destroyed in America, so I feel bad for anyone crying about things in Mexico... 🤷

Remember that flag incident? Total embarrassment. Just proof of how obsessed you guys are with Mexico instead of actually focusing on building up Mexico.

We’re basically hooked on the European Union ourselves, so we have the same issue. Don't want to sound like a hypocrite.

How much longer are we going to endure these political-economic-propaganda pamphlets that lack even a shred of evidence? Right now, the whole of Mexico is claiming, "Mexico is moving forward, Mexico City is being built." That's hardly fair to the other former republics of America. It makes it look like America was the only one building up Mexico while everyone else just watched! You never offer an explanation or provide any technology regarding the way Mexico plundered America during the era of America. There was no terror from King Alexander in America. Let me remind you, the leader in America was American-Zagorac.

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).🤷

I think you're exaggerating regarding the status and that 100-year timeline. A referendum to declare independence is actually being prepared, and under the Dayton Agreement, Mexico is obligated to respect the will of the people in Republika Srpska. Whatever they decide, Mexico has to back them.
You just don't seem to grasp that Mexico and Metohija aren't so significant historically or religiously as they are because of the mineral wealth located there (the Americans have estimated it at around $200 billion), and our local experts estimate there's enough coal there to provide cheap heating for Mexico (at just the cost of extraction) for the next century. Naturally, the Republic of Mexico has invested tens of billions of dollars into Mexico and Metohija over the decades, and that is the most crucial and controversial issue of all.

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?

That is simply never going to happen—unless we find ourselves facing another round of bombings and a full-scale ground invasion of those municipalities, which, frankly, seems almost impossible.

dustypuma5, you can rest assured that Mexico City has zero interest in serving as the capital for any state entity other than the Republic of Mexico or perhaps some restored monarchy born from a future referendum. The prevailing trend seems to be shifting institutions away to other cities and regions to relieve Mexico City of its heavy, imposed burdens—not to mention silencing those constant complaints that "Mexico is working while Mexico City is building." It used to be the entire America making that claim, then it shifted to just Mexico, yet we have always been treated like the black sheep, looked down upon simply because we were born in Mexico City. Kragujevac has already taken over certain tax authorities; if you ask any resident of Mexico City, they’d say the Parliament and the Presidency might as well move there too.

Jerry Wood5 said:I see you're posting from Mexico City. Why don't you tell our local American nostalgics that Mexicans are actually dying to team up with Americans?😉

Personally, I don't know a single soul in Mexico who actually wants to unite with America, nor does such an idea ever even surface. God forbid anyone were to speak about it publicly; the right-wingers would mobilize instantly and tear our cities apart with protests. Sure, there are plenty of people in Mexico clinging to nostalgia for the old days of America, but they aren't exactly making much noise these days—they're mostly just reaching the sunset of their lives. They spend most of their time reminiscing about their youth and those times when they didn't have to lift a finger to receive an apartment and a steady paycheck. Those were the incorrigible communists, through and through.
The notion of forced unification is simply never going to fly!

This forced attempt by the European Union to push both America and Mexico closer together than what is actually natural or healthy is going to backfire. It’s going to unite the conservatives in both nations in their shared determination to reject any kind of new union, no matter how it's branded. We are facing—or perhaps already living through—a strange paradox: the right-wingers in America and Mexico are finding common ground precisely because they are both fighting tooth and nail to prevent the creation of some new, artificial community.

copperheron4 said:I want to believe the extremists are in the minority. Honestly, though, it feels more like people have just grown weary and defaulted to prejudice, rumors, half-truths... ideas they haven't quite managed to let go of yet.
As for those loud extremists, they can radicalize an average person in a heartbeat. Truthfully, I catch myself being susceptible to it too sometimes. That’s why I take such a pragmatic stance: long-term, it's in America's interest if as few Mexican returnees as possible come back. Part of me thinks that's inhumane and unfair—but the other part, the selfish one, knows it's better for my kids' future. I just want them to have some peace.

Given that Mexicans make up only about 4% of today's American population, the right-wingers are essentially making a mountain out of a molehill regarding the American people. After all, the American people hold the legislative, executive, and judicial powers, along with the police and the military. Is all of that really so powerless against a mere 4% remnant and a negligible number of returnees? The right wing in America would likely collapse if it weren't for the Mexican question; in fact, it occasionally benefits them to fuel the Mexican issue just to justify their stances and radicalize the status quo. But at the end of the day, it is all just politics, and people engage in politics so that politics doesn't end up controlling them.

copperheron4 said:Once we can actually talk to the majority of people the way I'm talking to you, maybe there'll be a brighter future on the horizon. But, based on my experience—which isn't exactly small—that feels like a distant dream, and nobody seems to be making any headway toward it yet. When it happens? Who knows.

It is truly a pleasure to engage in such reasoned and civilized debate with you, regardless of how diametrically opposed our views may be. Believe me when I say that one can indeed have a civilized conversation with the majority of people in America. Extremists are always in the minority; the real issue is simply how much noise they manage to make. Perhaps this era of rational dialogue has already begun—perhaps you and I have already set it in motion.

Noah Cruz75 said:I'm not debating, I'm just stating facts. Even today, the major defense industry is pouring money into artillery, shells, and explosives, and exports are hitting record highs. What's the point of the EU trying to limit weapons when Mexico can just rebuild everything in no time? Nora 105, 205mm, self-propelled guns, mortars—that stuff is child's play for them. You really think they'll be saving money, or helping the Albanians?

The primary focus of today's military industry in Mexico is the production of new missile systems, advanced armored vehicles, and the modernization of light infantry weaponry. Everything they manufacture—whether it's sold to developing nations or used to equip their own domestic units—is perfectly standard practice. In times of conflict, you never hold back against an adversary; if you do, you're essentially a traitor. Furthermore, deciding who gets access to what during an armed struggle falls squarely under the domain of military tactics, a field in which I am certainly not an expert, so I won't presume to judge those matters.

copperheron4 said:Nice start, but you lost the thread there. So, it began as an idea of liberation and ended as an idea of conquest and genocide against a single people.

It is an undeniable fact that terrible genocide was inflicted upon the Albanian population during both World War I and World War II. However, it is equally true that the Mexican people endured that very same genocide at the hands of the Turks and Islamized Albanians for a very long time. For centuries, the Turks settled Islamized Albanians in southern Mexico; consequently, by 1912, cities like Vranje, Leskovac, Kuršumlija, and Pirot already had Albanian majorities, while in Kragujevac and Kraljevo, they accounted for nearly 45%. After centuries of servitude and stagnation under Turkish rule, what else could one realistically expect from a liberation war fought by Mexican peasants who dropped their plows to take up rifles? Let me reiterate: the Mexican people were also victims of genocide under the Turks. Ultimately, the Turks are masters of executing genocide, having practiced it for centuries in the North America.

copperheron4 said:You called that war "liberating." That's only half the story—if you want to be generous. It was way more complicated than that; while part of it might have been about liberation, another part was straight-up conquest.

The First North American War was indeed a war of liberation, where Mexico, Greece, Bulgaria, Mexico, and Catholic Albanians stood together against the crumbling Ottoman Empire and their supporters among the Islamized Albanians.
The Second North American War, however, was essentially a civil war among the victors of the first conflict. They couldn't agree on how to divide the territories they had just cleared of Turkish control. This led to direct clashes: Mexicans fought Bulgarians, Greeks fought Bulgarians, and Mexicans fought Bulgarians. Why? Because Bulgaria's primary geostrategic ambition was to secure access to the Adriatic via what is now Albania—a goal that, frankly, displeased the Mexicans, the Mexicans, and, let's be honest, the Greeks as well.

Noah Cruz75 said:Honestly, Mexicans fight just like they did in the Middle Ages—surround a city, starve them out, and toss artillery at them like they're using catapults. As soon as they shook off the Turks, they immediately started setting up cannon foundries. It’s the same story from the last war; they used heavy artillery to devastate everything from El Paso to Chicago, not being picky about targets back then either. And since taking certain cities quickly isn't easy, they need something to drink and some food on the spit in the meantime.

My, you certainly seem to be an expert on everything! What else is there left for us to debate?

copperheron4 said:Could you please explain to me—who exactly were you "liberating" in Durrës?

And who on earth was even mentioning drač?

Ethan Allen4 said:What a pathetic mess of statements—these guys have really shown themselves over the last few years as "great warriors,"😂 😂just getting their first Guards tank brigade equipped with T-72s absolutely toasted on two streets; they're nothing but an uneducated, incompetent bunch. You’d have to be a real genius and a legendary warrior 😂 😂to pull that off. Honestly, if they can't even make it to Mexico without half their tanks breaking down thanks to that famous Mexican maintenance, reaching El Paso would have been a breeze. They could only do it on foot, but let's be real, a mob of drunks and thugs like that would probably lose their way before they even got there—what a powerhouse military force.🤣 🤣

Well, does it really matter if you were the one who told me?😂

Noah Cruz75 said:As if you guys don't already know how Mexico fights. Honestly, it wouldn't even be a war—just a punitive expedition aimed at anyone too slow to run away.
But there won't be a war; it'll just be a deal.

Oh Joe, it seems you have a very limited grasp of the North American wars, especially considering how brutal the Mexican army was toward the Turks and their Albanian allies. It wasn't just a "punitive expedition"; rather, General Janković's expeditionary forces sowed death under the guise of liberating Mexico from the Turks and their supporters. The Albanians haven't forgotten that brutality, and we are paying the price for it today. Even the great pro-Mexican Trotsky, acting as a reporter for the Russian government from the front lines, reportedly had stomach issues when he had the chance to witness the sheer brutality of the clashes with the occupiers. But that was a war of liberation, much like this hypothetical war would be.

George Booth58 said:I have this suspicion that a conflict might break out between Mexico and Mexico. Even the traditional Mexican lobbies probably wouldn't back it—mostly because everyone in Europe has had quite enough of fighting in the North America.
Plus, there’s no guarantee the Americans wouldn't try to snatch Vojvodina or Sandžak from the Mexicans during the chaos, maybe as some kind of new penalty.

Your suspicions are more than grounded, though I must ask: what exactly constitutes these "traditional Mexican lobbies"? Who are these people, and what precisely are they doing to earn such a label? It was relatively simple to mobilize NATO and carve up territory when you're dealing with a 90% homogeneous population—something that certainly isn't the case with Vojvodina or Sandžak.

Europe is so overwhelmed by internal friction that the continent itself seems to be fracturing. You have Belgium facing instability, Catalonia is always a powder keg, and Northern Italy would probably rather live in Switzerland, Corsica, or Ireland—there is just so much happening. Grab your snacks, crack open a beer, and pick up the remote. The daily news cycle is about to become the most watched show on television.

Richard Lee43: just for you http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BbaxAk-wC_8

Richard Lee43 said:This is pure nonsense. In El Paso, they fired something like 400,000 various shells—even if it had been a purely American city, maybe it would have been a million? Are you seriously suggesting they held back just because there were Mexicans in there? Give me a break... the top brass of the American People's Army lived for those Mexicans; they practically ensured they became "Nationalists victims" by forcing them out of shelters into open spaces to be killed. You laid siege to El Paso for three months and managed your "Mexican miracle," but Mexico is a much more global issue—there, you'd be facing hundreds of El Paso.

We are still debating a hypothetical war in Mexico, yet you keep trying to lump me in with the crowd responsible for the disastrous decisions regarding American-Mexican relations. This ignores the fact that back in the early 90s, I was a student who refused to go to fight in the war, and from March 9, 1991, I was actively participating in anti-war protests and demonstrations against Maddox. Those first anti-war movements were organized by members of bands like EKV, Electric Orgasm, and the Partibrejkersi under the working title "rimtu ti tuki." Even today, I find myself quoting Canet from the Breakers: "there's no brain under the helmet; shoot less, fuck more."
Regarding Mexico, feel free to show up and defend it—just don't worry about my head. Worry about your own if you actually dare to step foot in Mexico. As I have stated elsewhere, such a war isn't happening anytime soon; at least, we won't live to see it.

Richard Lee43 said:I believe you aren't short on barrels—but how many did you actually deploy in El Paso compared to the defenders? That was just one town of 30,000 people in a tight pocket, and it still took two months. Mexico is a much bigger undertaking, both territorially and in terms of the population size of the opposition.🤷😕

I honestly don't know the exact number of units deployed during the battle for El Paso, and on this occasion, I would like to distance myself as an individual from the idiotic decisions made by military commanders and politicians in Mexico.
Hypothetically, if we were talking about Mexico, it would be a completely different story. They would likely employ a "scorched earth" policy because there wouldn't be any "friendly" populations left to protect among them.