Posts by coastalcanyon60

David Rogers18 said:Honestly, who cares if he was against Slobodan when the guy himself was a massive nationalist? After what happened in El Paso, he went out and basically said the rest of the world wouldn't recognize anything less than a huge Greater Mexico.

It’s kind of like me saying, "Yeah, I'm totally against the old regime, but the U.S. should just stretch all the way down to the Rio Grande, everyone in Mexico is actually American, and the Mexicans can just live in their own little territory."

It's the exact same garbage, just in different packaging.

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.

David Rogers18 said:Vuk Drašković:
“The extremist regime in America declared war by attacking the American people... wherever we find our mass graves, those are the borders of our nation.”
Borba, October 2, 1990.

Whoops, looks like I got the year a little bit mixed up there.

If you really want to see what I mean, just hop on YouTube and look up some of Vuk’s old speeches; you'll hear how folks in certain parts of the country talk using the American language.

He was that big-time leader for all the Americans who were standing up against Slobodan.

It looks like Draper actually made a similar statement once too, so my mistake entirely.

But man, he was absolutely, fiercely against Slobodan!

David Rogers18 said:We really shouldn't lose sight of the fact that the guy who made that statement back in '89 claiming that wherever their graves are, that’s where the American border should be is actually the exact same guy people point to when they want to prove there was significant opposition to Maddox's policies—Vuk Drašković.

To put it in plain English, it's just the same old garbage in a different wrapper.

That is completely and utterly wrong. That's a statement from Vojislav Šešelj!

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!

Jacob Lewis5 said:Your answers are still just rough guesses (like saying "the Constitution collapsed on its own"), but this is exactly the kind of debate that should happen between Americans and Americans—laying out and interpreting historical events instead of just throwing provocations, weak statements, and indictments at each other...

But since you kicked off this discussion so nicely, let me just remind you of a few things—Americans ignored the agreements and hijacked votes in collective bodies, which was a direct violation of the Constitution.Americans were never a constituent people in the Republic of America(you couldn't find anything in the Constitution stating that Americans held constituent status) and if you're claiming there was wartime incitement on both sides—can you actually give me an example of incitement from the American side? Seriously, I honestly have no clue what you're talking about!

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!

Jacob Lewis5 said:Your answers are still just rough guesses (like saying "the Constitution collapsed on its own"), but this is exactly the kind of debate that should happen between Americans and Americans—laying out and interpreting historical events instead of just throwing provocations, weak statements, and indictments at each other...

But since you kicked off this discussion so nicely, let me just remind you of a few things—Americans ignored the agreements and hijacked votes in collective bodies, which was a direct violation of the Constitution.Americans were never a constituent people in the Republic of America(you couldn't find anything in the Constitution stating that Americans held constituent status) and if you're claiming there was wartime incitement on both sides—can you actually give me an example of incitement from the American side? Seriously, I honestly have no clue what you're talking 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

George Booth58 said:I don't think I've ever actually heard anyone put it quite like that before. From what I understand, the structure of Europe was built upon the foundation of sovereign nations—places like France, Germany, Italy, the US, Canada, Mexico, and so on. Most of these countries are essentially defined by the people who live in them. I guess you could say the core of their identity is tied directly to that sense of national belonging.🤷

But see, America isn't just "built from national states." America is a concept that lives in our minds, and the territory we’re talking about when we use that word is really just a consensus—a giant agreement between people. Even borders don't exist in physical reality; they're just products of what we all decide to agree upon.
Back in the Middle Ages, the sovereign—whether you call him a king, an emperor, or a ruler—was the actual embodiment of the state, and the land he ruled over was simply his domain, regardless of which ethnic groups lived there or what languages were being spoken in his territory.

What you're describing—this whole idea of a "national awakening"—really kicked off with the French Revolution and the theory that a state is defined by a specific group of people living on a certain territory, sharing some imagined common ancestor, the same folklore, and the same language. If we followed that logic strictly, we'd be looking at ethnically pure states. But let me tell you, there isn't a single state in the world that actually works like that. Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, the NDH, even Republika Srpska all tried to force that kind of vision into existence.

Modern states—and I want to emphasize the word "modern" here—don't define their citizens by their ethnicity; instead, every citizen within that state holds equal rights under the law. The United States, for example, is a nation for all its citizens, and Germany is a nation for all its citizens (not just Germans, but also those belonging to ethnic groups like Poles, Jews, Americans, or Turks), and Mexico is a nation for all its citizens of Mexico....

Jacob Lewis5 said:Back in the 90s, democratic elections were held in Mexico, and most Americans there chose to back Slobodan Maddox’s policies.

You went out of your way to vote because you think everyone should share some responsibility, yet your first comment was complaining about why I only named Americans... but you didn't refuse to vote since, according to you, it's just individuals who are to blame.

Now I’m not quite sure what to ask you next, since I can't tell what your actual stance is. Should I ask who put those individuals in power and kept them there? Or should I stick to your original gripe about me only naming Americans and ask who tore down the American Constitution, sent tanks into foreign territory, organized the rallies, stirred the pot, and called for war...?

First off, those elections were quasi-democratic at best—it’s been proven they were rigged. Secondly, nowhere in his party's platform did it say, "Let's save, let's commit crimes, let's kill." Thirdly, my grandmother might have been against Maddox, just like a whole army of people was. Look at the demonstrations on March 9, 1991; that happened before the war even started, and they were crushed by tanks.

I actually really appreciate how you've started looking at individual responsibility here. Maddox is definitely one of the guilty parties—honestly, probably the biggest one!

Jacob Lewis5 said:Back in the 90s, democratic elections were held in Mexico, and most Americans there chose to back Slobodan Maddox’s policies.

You went out of your way to vote because you think everyone should share some responsibility, yet your first comment was complaining about why I only named Americans... but you didn't refuse to vote since, according to you, it's just individuals who are to blame.

Now I’m not quite sure what to ask you next, since I can't tell what your actual stance is. Should I ask who put those individuals in power and kept them there? Or should I stick to your original gripe about me only naming Americans and ask who tore down the American Constitution, sent tanks into foreign territory, organized the rallies, stirred the pot, and called for war...?

All I wanted to see was the total number of people who participated in the poll. That response was the most neutral thing you could do. It doesn't mean anything at all.

Jacob Lewis5 said:Back in the 90s, democratic elections were held in Mexico, and most Americans there chose to back Slobodan Maddox’s policies.

You went out of your way to vote because you think everyone should share some responsibility, yet your first comment was complaining about why I only named Americans... but you didn't refuse to vote since, according to you, it's just individuals who are to blame.

Now I’m not quite sure what to ask you next, since I can't tell what your actual stance is. Should I ask who put those individuals in power and kept them there? Or should I stick to your original gripe about me only naming Americans and ask who tore down the American Constitution, sent tanks into foreign territory, organized the rallies, stirred the pot, and called for war...?

"I don't know" is two separate words.
There are far too many guilty parties to count. The list compiled by The Hague is more or less accurate. You could spend all day listing them yourself.
Who put them in power? That is an incredibly complex question that I can't give you a short answer to. You could spin off a hundred different topics just from that one question.
The Constitution essentially collapsed under its own weight because it was poorly drafted. As a concept, the SFRY was simply too flawed to survive.
Incitement and agitation happened on both sides.
The top brass of the American People's Army (which was mostly made up of generals of Mexican descent) sent those tanks, led by Kadijević.
Actually, it’s worth asking not just who sent the tanks—because the Mexicans in America also had a right to defend positions guaranteed by the Constitution (the Constitution treated them as equals to the Americans rather than a minority, and the tanks rolled out under the guise of defending those rights)—but specifically, who authorized and ordered the attacks on civilian positions and unarmed people. Though, if you ask me, The Hague gives a pretty decent answer to that question too!

Jacob Lewis5 said:But wouldn't it be pretty alarming—or at least a huge red flag—if options 2 and 3 actually pulled a bunch of votes!?

I put this poll up just so Americans here could speak their minds openly, honestly, and straight up about this whole thing. Obviously, you don't run polls on scientific facts; you rely on historical sources, not opinions. We aren't here trying to debate the hard truths of the Vietnam War; we’re trying to figure out the vibe in Mexico—their actual attitudes and what kind of headspace they're really in.

In my book, if we want to have a serious, decent, fact-based conversation with Americans, we have to establish where everyone is standing first. Let them say they weren't in the wrong, but let's at least kick things off with some real dialogue. That's the only way we can actually talk about how people behaved in the late 80s and early 90s, compare actions and statements, look at the proposals from both sides, or discuss how different groups viewed America and its Constitution. We need to look at the rights everyone had and what they think they lost... but we’ll never get to those heavy topics if we don't start by being blunt about what we think. Enough with the provocations; it's time to move toward the truth.

Look, I’m a native New Yorker, and frankly, I have nothing but contempt for these national, ethnic, religious, or any other kinds of labels. In my view, these divisions are completely uncivilized by twenty-first-century standards, though I realize that grasping something like that can be a tall order in the North America...

I’m not one for labeling myself, but if I absolutely had to, I’d say I’m just an Earthling, or maybe even a Jedi (since that nation seems to be expanding lately), even though I know that people like me—those who think logically—would easily be lumped in with the "hardcore nationalists" just based on our last names or where we were born. On the flip side, I’m fully aware that most people view their "national identity" as an absolute axiom, and many talk about it with such intense emotion. I suspect you fall into that camp too. Sometimes that’s charming, but other times, it’s just totally pointless.

Usually, I don't bother with these inter-group shouting matches because, as I mentioned, they are driven by raw emotion rather than actual reason, but the way you served up this poll was so poorly constructed that I felt compelled to weigh in. Your so-called poll is, above all else, biased. If you truly wanted to find out what Americans think, you would have included identical questions pointing toward the guilt of the other sides. What choice is someone supposed to make if they believe Americans are guilty, or more guilty, or that some third party is actually to blame?

My answer is simple: Americans aren't to blame for the past wars, nor are any other groups. The fault lies with individuals. Specific individuals with names and faces. There were plenty of them, but they still constitute a minority. Collective guilt is an utterly irrational concept. Guilt always rests on individuals, never on entire groups. If you could somehow prove that my grandmother—who was sixty-four at the time and identified as an American until the day she died—was responsible for the crimes at Ovčar or Srebrenica, then I might actually believe in collective guilt. Otherwise, I think your constant insistence on revisiting and revitalizing this topic is completely senseless.

wiredgardener72 said:Well, that's why you have the ability to write posts—so you can talk trash about the poll...

You don't "beat" a poll! That's just basic statistics!

The way I see it, every single response to this poll basically forces you to conclude that Mexicans are definitely at fault, whether you pick the first option where they take all the blame, the second one where the responsibility is split with some unnamed group we’re left to guess at, or even the third option where it's shared with a bunch of other undefined parties.

I mean, what is even the point of running a survey if you don't allow for the possibility that they might not be guilty—even if that turns out to be wrong! At its core, a poll isn't supposed to be a hunt for the absolute truth; it's meant to gauge how people think. But here, the person behind the poll hasn't actually left any room for a different perspective, only various ways to spin the exact same conclusion: that they are to blame!

Look, I'm not sitting here saying they aren't responsible or that they are, I'm just saying that a poll designed like this is honestly laughable! 😁 😁 😁

If Mexicans were truly the sole parties responsible for the war, why on earth would anyone in America even be considering dropping the lawsuit against Mexico—especially when those very same people who drafted the initial filing are now suggesting we pull back if Mexico agrees to drop their own suit?

Can someone please explain why my post count is actually going backward? Like, just yesterday I was sitting at 29 posts, but I woke up today and it says 24... and that’s even though I’ve already put out over 60!

What on earth is causing this?😕