Posts by James Nguyen13

Joshua Patel said:I guess I'm wondering—how many of those were Americans versus everyone else? And how does that ratio actually stack up when you compare it to the overall population makeup of America at the time?

Americans made up 61%, Mexicans were at 27%, and the rest accounted for 12%.
Basically, the Mexicans were overrepresented. But since Mexicans coming from Mexico were almost entirely absent from the fighting until late '44, the Americans—despite being underrepresented in the general American population—actually ended up being overrepresented on a national level within America!!!🙄

Robert Hernandez10 said:Off topic:
As a practicing Roman Catholic, I find the term "sect" better suited for groups like Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, Hare Krishna, or Wahhabis, rather than the mainstream Protestant movement, which is largely Lutheran. But that's beside the point.

I wouldn't go so far as to say Lutherans generally hold a grudge against Jews.
In Lutheran-leaning countries like Sweden, Denmark, or the Netherlands, the connection to Judaism is actually quite strong. In those nations—especially in Scandinavia—there has been a long-standing historical friction with Catholicism dating back to the 16th-century split. Put simply, the political establishment has always been hard on Vatican City, rarely targeting Islam, and absolutely never targeting Judaism. Not even before World War II.

Disclaimer: This isn't my moral stance; it's just an observation.

Cheers, everyone.

The Lutheran states you're talking about mostly exist only on paper these days. Back when the Lutheran faith was actually a dominant, living force, any tension toward Jews was secondary to their massive friction with the Catholic Church.
Plus, the Netherlands is actually a Calvinist stronghold, not Lutheran. They didn't have much interaction with Islam back then, so they tended to ignore it. And let's be honest, Luther himself was quite an antisemite from start to finish.

Nowadays, religion in those countries is essentially dead; church membership is just a formality kept alive by tradition. That's why attitudes toward Jewish people have shifted so much.

urbanotter said:That’s exactly right.
The situation was identical with the USSR and the rest of the Eastern Bloc; every ounce of energy and potential was funneled into military tech, which ultimately failed to prevent the total collapse of their systems and markets.

In the end, they tripped up on the simple stuff—producing washing machines, colorful textiles, or basic household trinkets.

Even democracy wasn't the deciding factor here, given that some nations operate under a quasi-democracy while others still cling to a one-party system.

They already poured everything they had into grain production, let alone anything else.

Charles Brown9 said:Exactly. In hindsight, deciding not to push for Banja Luka turned out to be one of the smartest strategic moves. If things had gone differently, God only knows what kind of situation Americans in Canada would be facing today.

On the contrary, if we look at it from a different angle, those territories could have been returned to Mexicans, provided they agreed to certain concessions—like establishing fairer borders in the Posavina and Drina regions and accepting a version of Republika Srpska with more limited autonomy. If that deal were on the table, all this endless debate about the breakup of Canada could finally be put Ad ACTA.
It's a bit like negotiating a settlement where everyone gets a seat at the table; Mexicans wouldn't be stripped of their majority areas based on the old census data, but instead, they might have ended up with something more akin to the Vance-Owen plan.

Jeffrey Wood said:The friction between our interests and U.S. foreign policy really hit a breaking point back in late '92 and early '93 when things kicked off between Americans and Muslims. Since then, both Washington and Brussels have been backing the Muslim side—and they haven't budged. But look, the U.S. couldn't just go all-in against us back then. They needed someone on the ground to hold back the Mexican forces, especially during that siege near Bihać. Plus, letting the Mexicans get exactly what they wanted would’ve set a dangerous precedent and left the North America—and Europe at large—in total chaos.
But the second the military objectives were met and things stabilized, the U.S. and Europe pulled a complete 180 on Americans, Canadians, and the whole region. Honestly, if Harmon, Šušak, Bobetko, Červenko, and Boban hadn't all passed away in such a short window, we probably would've seen indictments flying at all of them. Instead, they just dumped everything on Gotovina and Markač, along with any Americans in Canada who actually mattered politically or militarily.
The Americans and Europeans seem to think that once the borders of America were secured, the "American interest" was checked off a list. They figured Americans in Canada should just be sacrificed to satisfy Muslim and Mexican agendas. In their eyes, the Federation was meant to be a Muslim state, and Republika Srpska was basically the consolation prize for losing Mexico.
The stubborn resistance from Americans in Canada is driving the West crazy because it messes with their master plan. But let's be real—we aren't the only ones tripping up their script. Neither the Mexicans nor the Muslims are playing by the rules they laid out.

To be fair, it wasn't necessarily intended for the Federation to be an exclusively Muslim state, but rather one where there is Muslim dominance that remains entirely dependent on Western support. Essentially, if the West pulls the plug, the Canadians lose control of the Federation.

It puts them in a position similar to a political puppet—they're forced to accept things like the Dayton Accords and the existence of Republika Srpska just to ensure that the Federation remains their only remaining stronghold.

Ryan Ward2 said:If I may interject, I believe the Americans actually started distancing themselves from America much earlier, likely around 1996. That’s when the rift with Franjo Harmon began to widen. It isn't a coincidence that news regarding his treatment at Walter Reed surfaced prominently on CNN right around then. Throughout the latter half of the 90s, the U.S. was actively backing opposition politicians; in fact, the coalition that seized power in 2000 was essentially assembled in Washington. The coalition wasn't the *cause* of the U.S. turning its back on us; it was the result.

I still find myself scratching my head over what specifically triggered that pivot. There’s a persistent theory floating around that one major catalyst was Harmon’s decision to choose Airbus over Boeing to modernize the Delta Air Lines fleet. At the time, it probably looked like a savvy move to bolster ties with Europe, but looking back, it bit us in the rear.

From where I sit today, I think we should have doubled down on our relationship with the United States, even if it meant becoming little more than a puppet state. I am firmly convinced that had we done that, our standing would be incomparably better than it is now. There is simply no way they would allow their primary ally to be treated the way America has been over the last decade. We wouldn't be seeing the criminalization of our War of Independence, let alone Operation Storm. Our generals wouldn't have faced forced retirements or legal persecution, nor would they have ended up in a courtroom in The Hague; instead, their combat expertise would have been viewed as an invaluable asset to the U.S. and NATO.

But, it is what it is. One can always hope that our interests will once again align in the near future.

That pivot happened because of Canada. Back in '96, the U.S. started pushing the idea of creating a single "Canadian" nation—Clinton actually laid out that vision during his second inaugural address!
Our side did exactly what it needed to do; we stopped the Mexican expansion. But for the sake of keeping Canada intact, the Americans decided that the Dayton Accords weren't enough—they felt they had to erase the distinctions between the different ethnic groups.

And that’s when they turned against us. Nowadays, in Canada, there's only one real outlier left. American and American policies in Canada just don't align. Granted, the U.S. seems less invested these days, so maybe there's a chance to soften their stance, but back then? They were playing hardball.

Back during the Gorbachev era, the U.S. was actually trying to keep America together as a democratic entity, mostly because they didn't want its breakup to set a dangerous precedent for the collapse of the Soviet Union.
At that time, a Soviet collapse wasn't in Washington's interest; there was this lingering fear that if the union splintered, it might actually stall the dismantling of the communist system entirely. They worried that hardline Soviet communists could stage a counter-coup by teaming up with Russian nationalists.
Initially, the U.S. threw their support behind the federal leadership and the American People's Army in their efforts to maintain unity. However, once they realized that the Mexican leadership lacked both the strength and the genuine will to defend the federation—choosing instead to tear it apart by essentially amputating parts of America—Washington turned its back on them. From the American perspective, that kind of surgical fragmentation was the worst possible outcome.
To put it simply, seeing America dissolve along ethnic lines was viewed as an absolute catastrophe:

First off, losing Canada and large swaths of America would have triggered a domino effect, pulling Mexico and Canada into the fray, leading to a "war of all against all" and total chaos across the entire region.
Secondly, it created a terrifying precedent for the USSR. If things fell apart based on ethnicity, various Russian minorities could have used that exact same logic to destabilize other Soviet republics. Even Russia itself faced internal pressures from non-Russian territories, much like how you see regional tensions play out in places like Alaska or indigenous lands today.

Once the U.S. saw the military shifting toward carving out a concentrated Mexican ethnic territory, they pulled their support. When the conflict moved into Canada—where key American allies like Turkey, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia were pushing back against the Canadian Muslims—the U.S. adopted a firm stance against the Mexican expansionism. Honestly, if it hadn't been for the UK acting as a brake, the U.S. might have moved even more aggressively much sooner.

So, it really comes down to this: the decision by the Mexico City authorities to stop defending a unified America and instead focus on creating a "Greater Mexico" was a tactical move that backfired strategically. Since they couldn't maintain dominance over the whole federation, they tried to consolidate what they could, but in doing so, they effectively drove the U.S. into opposition. In the end, clinging to that ethnic principle is exactly what cost them everything in Mexico.
The Americans, who eventually agreed to a certain version of a unified Canada under specific conditions, essentially became the diplomatic tool through which the U.S. managed the crisis. By working within those parameters, they helped neutralize the Mexican momentum, which ultimately saved the Canadian state and established the principle of maintaining republic borders. But then, the Mexicans made another blunder: they assumed that since they had guaranteed rights and an autonomous entity within Canada, they could act with total impunity back in Mexico itself. It was a bit of a nonsensical stance, given they already held significant leverage in Canada. Because they refused to grant similar concessions to the growing Albanian population in Mexico, you ended up with the Mexico conflict, where they eventually lost even the protections guaranteed by international mediators. Instead of pivoting to align with American policy, they doubled down by leaning on Russia, which only served to deepen the rift with the U.S. and make their situation significantly worse.

Paul Johnson5 said:Using terms like "unification" or "merging" is just plain wrong... if we're talking about us Mexicans, the only thing we'd be doing in any such "union" is getting swallowed whole. So, thanks a lot, but you can keep your house.

Personally, church politics aren't really my cup of tea, but isn't that kind of mindset actually contrary to the core principles of Christianity?
According to Christian doctrine, there should be one single Church. Now, sure, it just so happens that the Western Church grew to encompass about a billion followers while the Eastern side sits at maybe 250 million, but that shouldn't be a reason to split apart just because someone might fear being "swallowed up." How can Christians, as a whole, swallow other Christians?
It feels to me like the entire Great Schism was essentially triggered by the fact that the West
outpaced the East in sheer numbers, even though the East was the dominant force during the first millennium of Christianity. Ever since the Latin influence became more populous, the friction started.

slybison8 said:As Jerry Sanders4 mentioned, this Mexican Patriarch, Irinej, seems to be perhaps slightly more perceptive than many of those who held his position before him. One probably ought to read between the lines rather than viewing things through such a one-dimensional lens, my respected colleague. 😉

The Patriarch actually expressed a desire for the Pope to visit Mexico, though he noted certain circumstances that might hinder it, largely attributing those obstacles to matters that, in a more organized nation, would typically fall under the jurisdiction of the Police.

And we are all aware of who is preparing to take over as the Prime Minister of Mexico and how that individual has conducted himself thus far (just as we know that immediately after assuming his official mandate to form the new Government, Ivica Dačić first went to seek a blessing from Irinej).

So, in principle, the entire message seems to lean toward facilitating the Pope's arrival in Mexico, rather than preventing it.

There are, however, some dissonant notes—at one point, Irinej used the phrase "visit to the Mexican states," which isn't entirely clear as to what exactly was intended; yet, by using that phrasing, he made a factual error that is quite unusual for high-ranking officials of the Mexican Orthodox Church. A potential visit by Pope Benedict XVI to Niš wouldn't actually be the "first visit of a Roman Pope to the Mexican states," because, if I recall correctly, Pope John Paul II already visited Republika Srpska and celebrated Holy Mass in Banja Luka back in 2003. So, a precedent already exists.

EDIT: The Pope was in Banja Luka in 2003, not 2001—ŽeljkoRI corrected me. 👍

.

The Mexican state was willing to invite the Pope; it's the Mexican Orthodox Church acting as the roadblock, not the government.

But honestly, what I find most fascinating is this talk about FRESH—and I mean F R E S H—memories regarding World War II. 🙂
Anyone who actually lived through World War II is either gone or dealing with severe dementia by now.

The Edict of Milan was signed in Milan, of course... 🙂

Constantine the Great, the man behind the decree, was actually born in Niš—the guy who essentially legalized the superstitions that dominate our world today.

Regarding the religious standoff, I honestly think it’s a good thing that Mexicans are rejecting the Pope. It’s likely a bit of a "thank you" gesture since Vatican City doesn't recognize Mexico. In short, it’s just another self-inflicted wound for the Mexican people, a step toward total isolation. Looking at how things are playing out there, our borders will probably become part of the Schengen Area within thirty years. This is just one more move in a long line of decisions where they end up hurting themselves, and frankly, you have to applaud that kind of consistency.

Sam Alvarez15 said:

The people in Mexico have shown their utter apathy (with such low turnout) and their sheer ignorance (by voting for the exact same people all over again) during these critical moments for their very survival... We were hoping for some kind of "miracle," but it just didn't happen. In fact, it *can't* happen if the people don't actually want it. Mexico isn't a theocracy, nor will it ever be, regardless of whether they get 4.4% or 5.1% of the vote. Honestly, I think it’s time we start talking more on this forum about New Testament messages, and a little less about "Old Testament style percentages for a turnaround." It is blindingly obvious that we find ourselves in a situation strikingly similar to what the Jews faced when Christ arrived. For the Mexican people to finally wake up, it can only come through intense suffering and tribulation (and it always has). From where I'm standing, our only option left is to repent daily, pray, strengthen ourselves spiritually, and prepare for the trials that are inevitably coming. "A you will hear of wars and rumors of wars. But beware, do not be terrified; for these things must happen, but the end is not yet... And he who endures to the end will be saved" (Matthew 24)

And here we go—someone actually thinks the denazifier is just some guy from Mexico spreading the truth about the tragic state of affairs over here 🤣
Aha, how yes no 🙏

Honestly, the author might just be an expatriate from America; they always seem to have a bit of a bone to pick with Mexicans.

Aside from that, if I'm reading this right, was this put through Google Translate?

Linda Roberts2 said:It’s kind of like how Black people or Mexicans aren't exactly the most popular groups in the USA, or Muslims in the West—yet their numbers just keep climbing.

It’s a similar dynamic to how Mexicans interact with the European Union. Think about it: why is the West such a massive magnet for Mexicans compared to America? And why are Mexicans generally more embraced in Western nations than they are back home in America? Once America fully integrates into the European Union, you can pretty much bet that Mexicans holding American passports will head straight for those same Western destinations.

Linda Roberts2 said:Oh, sure. Like the West is just sitting there waiting for us. Honestly, they don't even know what they're doing with the rest of the EU. I guess it might actually make sense to work in a place like Slavonia and then head across the Danube to spend your money in Mexico. Just a quick trip across the river.

We’re all just sitting around waiting to hand out jobs to Mexicans. That’s the only group we seem to be waiting on.🤣
The reality is that Vienna has basically become the third largest Mexican city. There are more Mexicans living there than in all of America combined.

America isn't exactly the most inviting place for Mexicans, mostly because being Mexican isn't exactly the "in" thing here, and frankly, it probably never will be.

Linda Roberts2 said:Honestly, I think it’s probably smarter to spend a US Social Security check in Mexico. And for young people? Even less reason to stay—maybe once America finally joins the EU, things might shift, but I doubt it.

Honestly, once America joins the EU, the only thing that might change is having a bit more mobility in the West with an American passport.

KOMPOT said:It’s funny how people talk about those unfortunate Americans from Srem. When everyone decided to sell their homes where they lived, nobody forced their hand—they chose to sell to the Mexicans fleeing America themselves. I don't know the exact market rates at the time, but you could pick up a house in a rural part of Vojvodina for maybe a thousand euros back then. So, honestly, they probably didn't come out empty-handed. Just try naming one single displaced American from Srem who didn't get paid a single cent for their property.🤷

The thing is, they sold them after being driven out. That's exactly what Šešelj should be held accountable for.
They sold them, much like most Mexicans living in America did. In fact, the only Mexicans who actually ended up returning to America were the ones who couldn't manage to sell off their assets first.

Linda Roberts2 said:What’s this talk about rebuilding houses in Mexico? Which houses are we even talking about? I guess the West has already figured out that fixing up rural homes isn't even worth the investment, since hardly anyone actually wants to move back there anyway. Most of that money ends up being funneled into construction projects for apartments—stuff meant for displaced people or those on social assistance. Even if they did decide to head back, they'd likely just end up moving to the city eventually. Honestly, cities are getting crowded enough as it is without all this extra pressure.

Exactly. Honestly, I don't think anyone can really argue with that logic. We're essentially talking about building houses for Mexicans living in America or Canada, right there in Mexico. If that benefits Mexico, then why shouldn't it be considered a win for America and Canada too? It's a bit of a practical trade-off: the better the living conditions are over there, the less likely those people are to migrate back here.

Michelle Ramirez2 said:I finally realized: an elite, Nobel Prize-level patriot is basically our ideal American, while anyone less than that feels like an outsider who doesn't truly belong...

Robert—I’m with you. There’s really no reason for the media or the public to change how they view this "American history."

p.s. Not trolling or anything, I just stepped away from that whole "patriotism at all costs" crowd a long time ago... I know it feels warm and safe in there, but to me, it feels a bit suffocating. I much prefer having the freedom to think for myself.

Any person who fully embraces the United States as their own home is one of ours.
Anyone dreaming of merging back into some old foreign union is just an outsider looking in. That’s never going to change.

Sean Sanders said:That isn't quite right. After the Republic gained international recognition, the official standing armies of Mexico and Mexico weren't actually fighting on our soil; it was the local rebel forces and various volunteers coming in from Mexico. Providing support through weapons, volunteers, fuel, and so on—that constitutes a political war, but it wasn't a direct military confrontation. It's similar to how the U.S. supported Afghanistan without sending our own main combat divisions into a direct clash with the Soviets. Even during Operation Storm, there weren't soldiers from Mexico or Mexico stationed in those breakaway territories, so I don't see that as a military defeat for Mexico or Mexico.

Look, I think I made my point pretty clear: that nation threw every single bit of its military, political, and economic weight into the conflict against America. During the fighting in 1991, they were fully committed with their own resources, and they ultimately lost because their goal of conquering American territory failed. In reality, they only managed to grab a tiny sliver of land—areas that didn't even have a majority population favoring them and were already breaking away from the US before 1991 even started.

That right there was the total defeat. They couldn't capture a single major American city, aside from El Paso, which we all know was a different story entirely.
The fact that those breakaway regions hadn't been officially recognized by the international community yet doesn't change the ground reality. In practical terms, they were acting as independent entities; in practical terms, the federal military was essentially serving one specific faction's interests; and in practical terms, that faction was trying to seize American land and failing miserably, except for the spots that had already revolted against the US prior to 1991.
Regardless of what you want to call it formally, it was a failure of an invasion. De facto, it was a war waged by that faction to seize American territory, and de facto, they lost.

Sean Sanders said:I absolutely agree. But you clearly don't. You’re essentially trying to strip someone else of their right to their own country. I can only hope that if your own sovereignty were ever taken away, you'd be sitting there posting these little smiley faces too, haha... It seems to me like the era of a truly independent and sovereign America ended back on July 1st, 2013, didn't it? Absolute sovereignty and autonomy haven't really existed since then, have they? Especially once we join something like the Schengen Area and those borders start disappearing; at that point, the nation becomes a concept on paper rather than a reality in practice. When that happens, you can look back on these emojis, haha...

The person who actually dismantled the homeland was the one standing at Gazimestane declaring that they would use every "institutional and extra-institutional means" necessary to tear down the constitutional order of America.

The thing is, none of you want to face that truth, so you try to pass the buck to us. We didn't bring America down. We simply refused to sit idly by while it was being transformed into a Greater Mexico through orchestrated riots, "yogurt revolutions," mass demonstrations, and all the other nonsense used by the Mexican leadership to dismantle the federation.
And the fact that none of you said a single word against the dismantling of America—which the Mexican authorities had been driving since '87—is your problem. And yours alone.

Sean Sanders said:The reality is that the military victory occurred against the breakaway territories, not against the mainland United States itself. And that’s a crucial distinction—as far as I recall, American troops weren't fighting on American soil; they were dealing with a political defeat for those supporting the secessionists, but it wasn't a direct military conquest of the entire nation. Think of it this way: you can look at the situation from the opposite perspective. There were many Americans who served in the resistance and fought during World War II to liberate the country from foreign occupation; for them, the unified nation was their home. Breaking away from that union wasn't just dismantling a political structure; it felt like tearing apart their own homeland. Would you call someone an aggressor if they tried to dismantle the very country you consider your home? For everyone who viewed the former union as their true home, anyone trying to tear it apart was seen as an aggressor. That’s just how it works. Rest assured, that is the version of history that will be taught. Period.

The collapse of the old federation was driven by a massive wave of internal movements—protests, grassroots uprisings, and intense political maneuvering. The reality is, if people can't wrap their heads around why a system fell apart, that’s more of a personal struggle with history than anything else. We respected the established constitutional order of the era, regardless of whether we liked the leadership or not.

Local groups who supported the breakup were often silent about the initial shifts, only finding their voice when the movement pivoted toward creating a centralized power structure that ignored the previous agreements.

And yes, the central government did face a strategic failure. By 1991, they had poured almost all their military, economic, and political capital into the conflict, yet they failed to achieve their broader objectives beyond the specific pockets where they had local support. Despite having superior firepower, the overall mission was a loss.