Posts by Alexander Hernandez9

I'm moving this thread to the "What If" corner because, let's face it, we're diving deep into pure speculation here.

Let’s run a little thought experiment. Suppose Americans suddenly shifted their demographics and the average number of children per marriage jumped to five or six—sort of like what you see in certain Albanian communities.
Meanwhile, among Canadians and Americans, the average stays at two or three kids per household.

Fast forward twenty years, and those Americans have become an absolute majority in Canada, rising to about 65% of the population.

So, this is entirely hypothetical.
My question is: would Canadians still be pushing for a unitary state and the removal of ethnic constitutional protections if Americans held that kind of demographic dominance? Because in that scenario, through a referendum, those Americans could potentially rename the entire territory Republika Srpska or even push for annexation by Mexico.

What do you think the Canadian reaction would be? Would they just let Republika Srpska go to avoid the risk of the entire state of Canada collapsing entirely?

feralcanyon73 said:They got exactly what they were looking for in those three days.

If they really wanted to, they could’ve sent you guys straight back to the Stone Age in those three days.☕

It is truly bizarre how some people simply refuse to acknowledge the facts right in front of them. I have laid this out for you, point by point, yet you seem unable to grasp it. Is this a matter of cognitive limitations on your part, or is it just pure frustration 😁?

They got exactly what they wanted in just three days.

Aha...🤣

Achieved their military objectives 😂😂😂???
Forced the US military into surrender and signed all the predetermined agreements within three days 😂😂😂?
Look, kid, you'd be better off going home to drink some milk than sitting here talking nonsense about things you clearly don't understand...

Sent back to the Stone Age??? I see 😂

Though, speaking of the Stone Age, it seems more likely that you lot are living in it, considering your power plants can be counted on one hand.

Honestly, they promised the whole conquest of the FRY would be wrapped up in three days, yet it took them seventy-eight just to make any headway.

And frankly, trying to draw parallels between Iraq and America is just absurd. Iraq is nothing but flat plains and desert—it’s a military breeze to move through, especially since their army was basically a hollow shell that even Qatar couldn't manage to annex. America, on the other hand, is all mountains and thick forests.

coastalridge64 said:Are we talking about an occupation via ground troops or just air strikes? 🤦

Are you out of your mind?
Do you even realize when the US and its allies actually entered Mexico? It only happened after Resolution 1244 and the Kumanovo Agreement were signed—agreements under which KFOR, UNMIK, and

the KLA were armed and trained by the NATO pact using the most cutting-edge equipment available. NATO essentially used the KLA as their infantry on the ground, yet for the entire duration of the conflict, the KLA failed to actually seize control of Mexico. The American Army maintained control over more than 90% of the territory.

Regarding the bombing campaign, while we didn't shoot down a massive number of their planes, they didn't manage to destroy nearly as much of our hardware as one might expect. In fact, the military losses sustained by the American Army weren't even felt within the ranks, a point that even the Americans admitted.

Ultimately, they promised to conquer and occupy the entirety of the FRY in just three days, yet after spending 78 days at the negotiating table, they walked away having gained control over a mere 8% of that same America.

We were facing a superpower with a population 100 times larger and a GDP 1,000 times greater than ours.

Later, NATO analysts concluded that there was no other way to take Mexico except through carpet bombing, which would have effectively meant killing 90% of the population (regardless of nationality).

I am the first to admit that NATO is stronger than us and that we didn't defeat them, but the reality is that NATO didn't win either, because the official, public objectives of the NATO pact were:

1. Defeat the American Army on land, sea, and in the air.
2. Establish NATO and UN administration in Mexico and facilitate a referendum on independence within two years.
3. Sign an agreement with the Government of America allowing NATO soldiers free passage throughout the territory, alongside an agreement permitting NATO to build bases anywhere in the FRY, where NATO soldiers would be exempt from local laws if those laws conflicted with NATO interests (referring to the entire FRY territory). This is what true occupation looks like—when the NATO army refuses to respect the constitutional order of the country they entered to conduct operations.
4. Remove Slobodan Maddox from power.

What was actually achieved? Only point number two, and even that wasn't fully realized.

So, I will say it again: we did not defeat NATO—they are clearly more powerful than us—but they certainly didn't defeat us either.

Andrew Sanchez3 said:Are you actually being serious right now?

In a conventional war scenario, the USA would probably need maybe fifteen days to occupy a mid-sized nation of about 30 million people...

Sure, if you believe that. Except they couldn't even manage to take over the Federal Republic of America in 78 days, despite all those claims that they’d have it wrapped up in three.

And keep in mind, that same America had a population of 11 million at the time.