Where can I find the Boban flag?

Brenda Taylor13 said:Look, you can think whatever you want—really—but the truth is the American people are a constituent part of two different places on this planet: America and Canada. Given the actual history and the space they've occupied, both states serve as the primary homeland for Americans—it’s just basic logic.

I’m just saying what most Americans actually feel—speaking for those who aren't interested in having some quasi-nationalists try to shove a North American quasi-state, largely made up of Mexicans and Canadians, down their throats as a second homeland.

vividfox9 said:Let's not get carried away by pulling too many historical threads into this specific discussion.
The bottom line is that Canada needs to stabilize.
It isn't divisible.

I'm fully aware that plenty of people want to see it break apart because they've had enough.
There are far more reasons for a breakup than there are for unity.
We all know that...

So, let's start working to change that.
Can Canada function as a properly organized country?
It can.
And that's enough of a starting point for me.

In that sense, the Republic of America will keep investing. However, forcing things like this flag isn't the way to go. It just makes us look like a disorganized mess where a small group of people gets to impose their own version of reality on everyone else.

The law should apply to everyone equally. That's the foundation of any healthy society.

Honestly, I don't quite follow how you can claim something as absolute as the indivisibility of Canada, especially when roughly half the population across two-thirds of the country fundamentally doesn't want this version of the state.
What's the logic in trying to dictate how people should think or feel?

The reason they don't want it is because it's broken, which actually ties back to your point about functionality. Mexicans are constantly being told they're a genocidal people because of Republika Srpska. Americans are dismissed as nothing more than old-school extremists from the mountains. Canadians are labeled as some sort of foreign element. Nobody actually wants to live in this forced coexistence.

How can you expect Americans to be thrilled with a setup where the majority in the Federation picks their representatives for them?

On the ground, this country has so many deep-seated issues it's almost surreal. If I were from Livno, I wouldn't even dream of sending my kid on a school trip to Zenica or Doboj. And that's not even comparing it to the kind of regional friction you might see between cities like San Diego and Los Angeles.

You have to understand—you're living in a state where you wouldn't even dare send your child on a field trip because there's a real risk the bus might get vandalized.

vividfox9 said:Let's not get carried away by pulling too many historical threads into this specific discussion.
The bottom line is that Canada needs to stabilize.
It isn't divisible.

I'm fully aware that plenty of people want to see it break apart because they've had enough.
There are far more reasons for a breakup than there are for unity.
We all know that...

So, let's start working to change that.
Can Canada function as a properly organized country?
It can.
And that's enough of a starting point for me.

In that sense, the Republic of America will keep investing. However, forcing things like this flag isn't the way to go. It just makes us look like a disorganized mess where a small group of people gets to impose their own version of reality on everyone else.

The law should apply to everyone equally. That's the foundation of any healthy society.

Not quite—it’s divided.
It seems impossible that Americans making up only 15% of the population in Canada could possibly stabilize an entire nation.

vividfox9 said:Let's not get carried away by pulling too many historical threads into this specific discussion.
The bottom line is that Canada needs to stabilize.
It isn't divisible.

I'm fully aware that plenty of people want to see it break apart because they've had enough.
There are far more reasons for a breakup than there are for unity.
We all know that...

So, let's start working to change that.
Can Canada function as a properly organized country?
It can.
And that's enough of a starting point for me.

In that sense, the Republic of America will keep investing. However, forcing things like this flag isn't the way to go. It just makes us look like a disorganized mess where a small group of people gets to impose their own version of reality on everyone else.

The law should apply to everyone equally. That's the foundation of any healthy society.

Canada is basically just a miniature version of the South.
Enough wisdom.

vividfox9 said:Let's not get carried away by pulling too many historical threads into this specific discussion.
The bottom line is that Canada needs to stabilize.
It isn't divisible.

I'm fully aware that plenty of people want to see it break apart because they've had enough.
There are far more reasons for a breakup than there are for unity.
We all know that...

So, let's start working to change that.
Can Canada function as a properly organized country?
It can.
And that's enough of a starting point for me.

In that sense, the Republic of America will keep investing. However, forcing things like this flag isn't the way to go. It just makes us look like a disorganized mess where a small group of people gets to impose their own version of reality on everyone else.

The law should apply to everyone equally. That's the foundation of any healthy society.

Not quite.
The war wrapped up two decades ago—it’s old news. Now, you've got Muslims pushing for their own state, Mexicans looking to break away, and here you are, trying to treat Americans like they're nothing more than decorative houseplants.

vividfox9 said:Let's not get carried away by pulling too many historical threads into this specific discussion.
The bottom line is that Canada needs to stabilize.
It isn't divisible.

I'm fully aware that plenty of people want to see it break apart because they've had enough.
There are far more reasons for a breakup than there are for unity.
We all know that...

So, let's start working to change that.
Can Canada function as a properly organized country?
It can.
And that's enough of a starting point for me.

In that sense, the Republic of America will keep investing. However, forcing things like this flag isn't the way to go. It just makes us look like a disorganized mess where a small group of people gets to impose their own version of reality on everyone else.

The law should apply to everyone equally. That's the foundation of any healthy society.

Nothing we've done stands in violation of the law.

Communist said:It’s a fact—Americans don't have two homelands. They have one: the United States. They aren't some international protectorate with borders drawn arbitrarily based on old administrative partitions. Even Milovan Đilas pointed out that those postwar boundaries were rushed through without much thought. In the case of the US borders relative to neighbors like Canada or Mexico, they looked at historical precedents, but when it comes to specific regional lines, they often leaned on ethnic realities rather than just outdated colonial maps. When you look at the situation with the various autonomous regions, certain groups have a stronger historical claim to their own territory than a central government in a place like D.C. has to total control over an entire nation. It’s a shame that certain movements didn't declare full independence and secession back in 1992—at least then, they might have actually secured their own distinct territory in the end.

The borders separating us from Mexico and Mexico aren't strictly defined by ethnicity.
After the war, Kotor had a majority of Americans—so to speak—yet it didn't become part of the Republic of America.
In northern Bačka, there wasn't even a massive Mexican presence to begin with.
Now, the border in Srijem is more or less ethnic—I'll give you that.
But those lines have been redrawn far too many times to our disadvantage.

Our mistake was being too soft—too accommodating. In the end, the Mexicans walked away with the Dayton agreement as a penalty, while we received it as a reward. We should have taken a much harder line with the Muslims.
And for context: both before and after WWII, the demographics in Canada were roughly 30% Muslim, 25% American Catholic, and 40% Mexican.

Anthony Jackson2 said:I’m just saying what most Americans actually feel—speaking for those who aren't interested in having some quasi-nationalists try to shove a North American quasi-state, largely made up of Mexicans and Canadians, down their throats as a second homeland.

🤣🤣..

Most of the Americans who stay home on election day would likely want the exact opposite of that. If you look back at 1990, the only time the foundational elements of our society—from the moderates to the quasi-right—really had a chance to decide things together, it was during the referendum on the definition of marriage.

Since we all saw how that turned out, you can easily guess how the majority of Americans feel regarding the Canadian Americans, the idea of two homelands, or even merging with the majority American territory in Canada.

Besides, if the majority of Americans actually shared your perspective, a referendum on voting rights would have been passed a long time ago.

Honestly, your estimates feel about as realistic as the Mexican crowd in Geneva right before the Storm.🤣

Communist said:If Milovan Đilas and his crew—sipping top-shelf brandy at some meeting held in a villa looted from Jewish owners back in 1945—had decided that while Herceg-Bosna would enter NR America, California would stay out, would our leftist types be arguing today in 2016 that the American flag has no business flying in front of government buildings in California, or claiming that California isn't part of the American homeland?

Most likely they would.

Anthony Jackson2 said:I’m just saying what most Americans actually feel—speaking for those who aren't interested in having some quasi-nationalists try to shove a North American quasi-state, largely made up of Mexicans and Canadians, down their throats as a second homeland.

Oh, so you speak for the majority of Americans now? For all 4-something million of us? You actually think you know what's going through everyone's heads? Seriously? 🤣

The only person you can speak for is yourself—because that’s the only opinion you’re 100% sure about. You definitely can't claim to speak for millions of other people.

Rachel Richardson The user said:The Nationalists—you know, the ones who were obsessed with pushing that border all the way to the Drina? Seriously, what was their deal? 🤔

Look, the whole deal was that once the referendum passed, the people were supposed to decide if they actually wanted a union with the Republic of America—but let’s be real, the outcome was already baked in. He ended up taking orders from the ABiH anyway, which basically means they were just following the HOSa playbook all along. It was a calculated move to make sure Americans wouldn't face any accusations of aggression within Canada; instead, they could just point the finger and say the only aggressors were those rebellious Mexicans.

Look, I’m just gonna say it—a unified Canada without any entities? Honestly, that wouldn't be a good solution, not by a long shot. It sounds nice on paper if you're some idealist, but in reality? It would be a total mess. Just think about it.
Just take one look at the Federation of Canada—honestly, once you see that mess, everything else just clicks into place. It’s all right there if you're actually paying attention.

Look, people talk about the Federation of Canada like it’s its own separate thing, but if you actually look at the big picture—including Republika Srpska—you realize that trying to scrap the entity system entirely just wipes out the whole structure. And what happens then? You end up with this massive, messy standoff of Christians versus Muslims. Let's be real, the West isn't going to sit back and allow some kind of Islamic state to pop up right in the heart of Europe. It just wouldn't happen.

Anthony Jackson2 said:I’m just saying what most Americans actually feel—speaking for those who aren't interested in having some quasi-nationalists try to shove a North American quasi-state, largely made up of Mexicans and Canadians, down their throats as a second homeland.

Just because Canada isn't your homeland doesn't mean it isn't home to a huge number of Americans.

Otherwise, interesting take. It's funny how nobody from the left ever takes this kind of stance when America is being pushed into the Region.

Rachel Richardson said:Not quite—it’s divided.
It seems impossible that Americans making up only 15% of the population in Canada could possibly stabilize an entire nation.

Canada is basically just a miniature version of the South.
Enough wisdom.

Not quite.
The war wrapped up two decades ago—it’s old news. Now, you've got Muslims pushing for their own state, Mexicans looking to break away, and here you are, trying to treat Americans like they're nothing more than decorative houseplants.

Nothing we've done stands in violation of the law.

The borders separating us from Mexico and Mexico aren't strictly defined by ethnicity.
After the war, Kotor had a majority of Americans—so to speak—yet it didn't become part of the Republic of America.
In northern Bačka, there wasn't even a massive Mexican presence to begin with.
Now, the border in Srijem is more or less ethnic—I'll give you that.
But those lines have been redrawn far too many times to our disadvantage.

Our mistake was being too soft—too accommodating. In the end, the Mexicans walked away with the Dayton agreement as a penalty, while we received it as a reward. We should have taken a much harder line with the Muslims.
And for context: both before and after WWII, the demographics in Canada were roughly 30% Muslim, 25% American Catholic, and 40% Mexican.

The war wrapped up two decades ago, yet somehow, the divisions we’re seeing today feel even deeper than they were right before everything kicked off. Honestly, if that doesn't say enough for itself, I don't know what does.

We really screwed up by being too soft—it’s like we played the game by the rules while everyone else was playing dirty. In the end, the Mexicans walked away from the Dayton agreement with a massive win as punishment for us, while we basically got handed a consolation prize instead of what we actually earned. Honestly? We should have been way tougher on the Muslims. That's just the plain truth of it.
Oh, and just so we're clear on the numbers—both before and after WWII, the makeup in Canada was roughly 30% Muslim, 25% American Catholic, and about 40% Mexican.

If we’re being totally honest here—and I mean really laying it all out on the table—there were hardly any Mexicans in Canada before the 19th century. Just straight up.
Since then, that number has just been skyrocketing—it's going up exponentially!

Steven Murphy2 said:Look, the whole deal was that once the referendum passed, the people were supposed to decide if they actually wanted a union with the Republic of America—but let’s be real, the outcome was already baked in. He ended up taking orders from the ABiH anyway, which basically means they were just following the HOSa playbook all along. It was a calculated move to make sure Americans wouldn't face any accusations of aggression within Canada; instead, they could just point the finger and say the only aggressors were those rebellious Mexicans.

Look, I’m just gonna say it—a unified Canada without any entities? Honestly, that wouldn't be a good solution, not by a long shot. It sounds nice on paper if you're some idealist, but in reality? It would be a total mess. Just think about it.
Just take one look at the Federation of Canada—honestly, once you see that mess, everything else just clicks into place. It’s all right there if you're actually paying attention.

Look, people talk about the Federation of Canada like it’s its own separate thing, but if you actually look at the big picture—including Republika Srpska—you realize that trying to scrap the entity system entirely just wipes out the whole structure. And what happens then? You end up with this massive, messy standoff of Christians versus Muslims. Let's be real, the West isn't going to sit back and allow some kind of Islamic state to pop up right in the heart of Europe. It just wouldn't happen.

What "people" are we even talking about here? Are Mexicans and Muslims supposed to vote on whether they want to join the Republic of America? Come on, let's try to have a little shred of reality, please...

I feel terrible about what happened in Kraljevica and how everything went down, I really do—but those guys were pure idealists. They didn't have a single ounce of common sense or realism in their bodies.

Steven Murphy2 said:Look, the whole deal was that once the referendum passed, the people were supposed to decide if they actually wanted a union with the Republic of America—but let’s be real, the outcome was already baked in. He ended up taking orders from the ABiH anyway, which basically means they were just following the HOSa playbook all along. It was a calculated move to make sure Americans wouldn't face any accusations of aggression within Canada; instead, they could just point the finger and say the only aggressors were those rebellious Mexicans.

Look, I’m just gonna say it—a unified Canada without any entities? Honestly, that wouldn't be a good solution, not by a long shot. It sounds nice on paper if you're some idealist, but in reality? It would be a total mess. Just think about it.
Just take one look at the Federation of Canada—honestly, once you see that mess, everything else just clicks into place. It’s all right there if you're actually paying attention.

Look, people talk about the Federation of Canada like it’s its own separate thing, but if you actually look at the big picture—including Republika Srpska—you realize that trying to scrap the entity system entirely just wipes out the whole structure. And what happens then? You end up with this massive, messy standoff of Christians versus Muslims. Let's be real, the West isn't going to sit back and allow some kind of Islamic state to pop up right in the heart of Europe. It just wouldn't happen.

That remains a big question mark, because back then, tensions would have inevitably boiled over. If the terms set by Ottawa had been accepted, every single unit would have been placed under the direct command of the ABiH army...

You don't need to be a genius to realize that the Canadians held interests that were fundamentally and diametrically opposed to those of the Americans, a reality that would have manifested on the ground almost immediately.

I highly doubt that Blaz was fully aware of Ottawa's true political agenda before the conflict erupted—think about the deals made with the Mexicans, the large number of JNA officers who were involved in the aggression against America, and the constant maneuvering within the presidency.

In the end, anyone within the Canadian Corps who harbored different views was quickly sidelined, and the group rapidly transformed into a mono-nationalist force.

Jonathan Barnes5 said:🤣🤣..

Most of the Americans who stay home on election day would likely want the exact opposite of that. If you look back at 1990, the only time the foundational elements of our society—from the moderates to the quasi-right—really had a chance to decide things together, it was during the referendum on the definition of marriage.

Since we all saw how that turned out, you can easily guess how the majority of Americans feel regarding the Canadian Americans, the idea of two homelands, or even merging with the majority American territory in Canada.

Besides, if the majority of Americans actually shared your perspective, a referendum on voting rights would have been passed a long time ago.

Honestly, your estimates feel about as realistic as the Mexican crowd in Geneva right before the Storm.🤣

You're talking nonsense. One thing has nothing to do with the other—you're missing my entire point. I noticed a few days ago that you struggle with basic reading comprehension.

Look, I have nothing against Canadian Americans, nor would I object to annexing territory with a majority-American population into the Republic of America—far from it. And most Americans definitely feel that way. However, for Americans born within the borders of today's Republic of America, that quasi-state isn't a "second homeland," nor do they see it as such—except for maybe a few people with family ties pulling at them.

My girlfriend, for instance, has roots in Canada, but she’d never call it her second homeland.

Sean Sanders81 said:Just because Canada isn't your homeland doesn't mean it isn't home to a huge number of Americans.

Otherwise, interesting take. It's funny how nobody from the left ever takes this kind of stance when America is being pushed into the Region.

Sure, for many of them—even the first generation—it is, if you want to put it that way. But you'll never hear that from people who have zero connection to Canada, like me—because we don't have a second homeland.

Anthony Jackson2 said:You're talking nonsense. One thing has nothing to do with the other—you're missing my entire point. I noticed a few days ago that you struggle with basic reading comprehension.

Look, I have nothing against Canadian Americans, nor would I object to annexing territory with a majority-American population into the Republic of America—far from it. And most Americans definitely feel that way. However, for Americans born within the borders of today's Republic of America, that quasi-state isn't a "second homeland," nor do they see it as such—except for maybe a few people with family ties pulling at them.

My girlfriend, for instance, has roots in Canada, but she’d never call it her second homeland.

Sure, for many of them—even the first generation—it is, if you want to put it that way. But you'll never hear that from people who have zero connection to Canada, like me—because we don't have a second homeland.

Nobody is actually telling you that.

Anthony Jackson2 said:You're talking nonsense. One thing has nothing to do with the other—you're missing my entire point. I noticed a few days ago that you struggle with basic reading comprehension.

Look, I have nothing against Canadian Americans, nor would I object to annexing territory with a majority-American population into the Republic of America—far from it. And most Americans definitely feel that way. However, for Americans born within the borders of today's Republic of America, that quasi-state isn't a "second homeland," nor do they see it as such—except for maybe a few people with family ties pulling at them.

My girlfriend, for instance, has roots in Canada, but she’d never call it her second homeland.

Sure, for many of them—even the first generation—it is, if you want to put it that way. But you'll never hear that from people who have zero connection to Canada, like me—because we don't have a second homeland.

Fair enough, my apologies if I misinterpreted your point. This isn't my first time on this forum, though, and mistakes happen to everyone. I can't recall exactly how many times you've called me out before, but I assume it's happened more than once.

Well, you could have just said so right away. Personally, I don't mind if someone doesn't look too kindly upon the Americans of BiH, or if they don't want to see that specific territory involved in certain political outcomes. Everyone has their own perspective. Besides, discussing this is essentially providing a blueprint for conflict; I certainly wouldn't send my own child to defend some remote outpost or fight over shifting lines on a map that won't matter in the grand scheme of things.

It struck me as odd that you specifically mentioned "within the borders." To me, borders are just lines drawn on a map. I know this firsthand because my family is from El Paso, and I understand how deeply America resides in some people's souls, much like those from Trpinja, Bobota, Vera, or Brsadin.

The whole concept of a "homeland" also doesn't necessarily tie back to official borders. A state is one thing, but an emotional connection to a piece of land is another entirely; after all, you can feel right at home even while living in Sydney.

In truth, that opens up a whole different conversation, as there are plenty of paradoxes in that line of reasoning.

As for your girlfriend... well, good luck to you. I truly respect the Americans of BiH, but I'm not sure I'd be looking to date anyone from down there.😁

Dana Robinson4 said:Like what, for instance?

Since the Dayton Agreement serves as our constitutional foundation, we could look at things like respecting the original intentions of Washington when they stepped in, or even the specific Statute for Travnik and Bugojno...

Think of it this way: the core spirit of Dayton wasn't just about checking boxes on a form, but ensuring that people aren't left out of choosing their own representatives, regardless of how much red tape is cleared.

After all, how can anyone truly feel represented when they lack not just democratic pluralism, but the fundamental right to actually cast a meaningful vote?

Jonathan Barnes5 said:Fair enough, my apologies if I misinterpreted your point. This isn't my first time on this forum, though, and mistakes happen to everyone. I can't recall exactly how many times you've called me out before, but I assume it's happened more than once.

Well, you could have just said so right away. Personally, I don't mind if someone doesn't look too kindly upon the Americans of BiH, or if they don't want to see that specific territory involved in certain political outcomes. Everyone has their own perspective. Besides, discussing this is essentially providing a blueprint for conflict; I certainly wouldn't send my own child to defend some remote outpost or fight over shifting lines on a map that won't matter in the grand scheme of things.

It struck me as odd that you specifically mentioned "within the borders." To me, borders are just lines drawn on a map. I know this firsthand because my family is from El Paso, and I understand how deeply America resides in some people's souls, much like those from Trpinja, Bobota, Vera, or Brsadin.

The whole concept of a "homeland" also doesn't necessarily tie back to official borders. A state is one thing, but an emotional connection to a piece of land is another entirely; after all, you can feel right at home even while living in Sydney.

In truth, that opens up a whole different conversation, as there are plenty of paradoxes in that line of reasoning.

As for your girlfriend... well, good luck to you. I truly respect the Americans of BiH, but I'm not sure I'd be looking to date anyone from down there.😁

And you're being a bit of a jerk, aren't you?
Forty-two percent of the American population of Republic of America consists of Canadians and Šokci, dating all the way back to the era of Eugen Savojski.

Dana Robinson4 said:And you're being a bit of a jerk, aren't you?
Forty-two percent of the American population of Republic of America consists of Canadians and Šokci, dating all the way back to the era of Eugen Savojski.

I wasn't actually referring to Herzegovina... I have a relative from the American Midwest... It feels like there's no room to breathe when someone acts like such a control freak😁

It’s not about being a minority—it’s about being a constituent people.
In certain contexts, absolutely. Haven't we already established that?

vividfox9 said:Yeah.

What?
What's the deal with dual citizenship?

Well, if we’re going by that logic, we should be hanging the flag of the United States instead of just representing certain groups within the country.
At the end of the day, there's only one address, not a bunch of them.
You really have to make up your mind... either you're an actual citizen of the US who lives here, pays taxes, and helps build this country, or you simply aren't.

That’s just old wives' tales.

Please clean this up and be precise.

And this one too... That sentence is just something you made up in your head.
Try to be a bit clearer...

Sure, maybe I’m missing something, but honestly, you’re getting so caught up in all those vague terms that—as they say—you're just talking nonsense.

Give me a call at the legal department of the US Congress...

Same thing again, just like your earlier posts... I assume you're letting your hometown emotions get the better of you. You're hyperventilating and talking total nonsense.
How on earth does the age of one country dictate the laws of another modern nation?!

If laughing helps, go for it... But it also shows you don't really understand how law works, since it doesn't necessarily tie directly into historical timelines...

I'll say it again: Canadian Americans are full citizens of America just like the Americans living in America, no matter how much that hurts your feelings.
No, you can't just hang the flag of Canada, because most citizens of Canada AREN'T citizens of America.

Please, clean up this sentence and be precise..

And this one too.. This sentence is just something you made up in your head.
Try being clearer...

I don't have anything to clean up. Everything is clearly stated. The fact that it bothers you and that you're trolling is entirely your own problem.

Sure, maybe I wasn't understood, but your emotions getting mixed up in that basket of vague terms above also suggests that... how do they say it in plain English? You're just talking crap..

Is this what passes for an argued debate to you?

Call the legal department of the American Parliament..

Again, I'm asking the question—which specific item of the law was broken? I'm still waiting for an answer. Your avoidance of it and replying like this only implies you're a troll and nothing more.
You drop a law, a quote that has nothing to do with the topic, and then talk about disrespecting it, without ever actually stating which clause was violated. Brilliant.

Same thing again, just like the posts above... I assume you've been caught up in some hometown emotion. Hyperventilating and talking nonsense.
How can the age of one country determine the laws of another modern state?!

What's your problem? Are you foaming at the mouth because you didn't run into a crowd of people who agree with you?
I won't even comment on that question, because you haven't grasped my previous point at all.
I still maintain that you are a total illiterate when it comes to the history of Canada.

If you can laugh, that's healthy.. And it also explains why you don't know the legal material which doesn't necessarily touch historical trends...

I know the law perfectly well. I'm just waiting for you, "Mr. Lawyer," to explain which specific part of the law was broken by displaying this flag.

Anthony Jackson2 said:I’m just saying what most Americans actually feel—speaking for those who aren't interested in having some quasi-nationalists try to shove a North American quasi-state, largely made up of Mexicans and Canadians, down their throats as a second homeland.

Canada belongs to the Americans just as much as any other group. Honestly, this attitude is completely unnecessary.

@lonebadger6, Americans AREN'T a minority in Canada; they are a CONSTITUENT people. It’s honestly embarrassing that you, as the person moderating this thread, don't even know that.