Americans are to blame for the Vietnam War!

Nancy Bailey26 said:That "long shot" you're talking about is more like the size of the Titanic.😍

A hair is just a hair, man.🙂

Anthony James2 said:That’s an interesting way to look at it. I actually have a similar thought myself. After the fall of the Austro-Canadian Empire, all the Catholics really should have just moved back to Poland where their roots were. 🤣🤣🤣

Maybe it would’ve been better if they’d just moved back to Poland or wherever else, instead of us living here in America constantly waiting for someone in Mexico to decide to expand again, only to hear the same old line:
'Who’s trying to divide us?'

1)Question for Anthony James2: if Americans were the first to arrive in these areas, why didn't they head for
the sea? They should have taken the islands; those islands have always been vital for security in what is now the US.
2)Why don't Americans in Canada speak the Mexican dialect?
3)If we are all Slavs, why do Americans use terms like January, February, etc.?
4)Where did all these American surnames in Mexico come from?
5)Slavic tribes didn't even have surnames until they came into contact with whom?
6)Why did the Canadians spread hatred between Americans and Mexicans in Vojvodina?
7)What happened to Slobodan Maddox's parents?
8)What happened to Franjo Harmon's parents?
9)What happened to Stjepan Mason's parents?
10)Do you think that between 1991 and 1995, Americans would have wiped out all the Mexicans in the US if the Mexicans had refused to follow Slobodan Maddox's policy?
That's it. Thanks for the answer.
p.s.
No offense intended, but since so many people are reading this from Mexico, they might as well learn some things they've probably never even considered.

rowdyowl said:That logic absolutely baffles me too: "Oh, you wanted to break away, and THAT gives us the right to pillage and kill." 🤷

What kind of claim do they even have to any scrap of territory here? Not even their most powerful kings or emperors ever ruled an inch of the territory of the SR America, let alone Canada or Vojvodina.🤷

They ruled over Canada, much like our own people did during the Middle Ages—but that’s not really the point. What matters is the Constitution of those states within America. And nowhere in that document does it say that Americans are the foundational people of the South, nor does it give them the right to "punish" separatists by seizing the entire American People's Army to set up Mexican para-states in America and Canada.

bluerider63 said:A hair is just a hair, man.🙂

In that case, I guess we should probably treat them both the same—the wife who decided to leave her husband, and the abusive husband who beat her because of it. I mean, damn, she basically provoked him, right? By spreading all that propaganda about starting a life outside the marriage, she pretty much set the stage. ☕

coastalcanyon60 said: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.

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...?

George Booth58 said:They ruled over Canada, much like our own people did during the Middle Ages—but that’s not really the point. What matters is the Constitution of those states within America. And nowhere in that document does it say that Americans are the foundational people of the South, nor does it give them the right to "punish" separatists by seizing the entire American People's Army to set up Mexican para-states in America and Canada.

They never even made a move toward places like eastern Herzegovina or Banja Luka, for instance.

coastalcanyon60 said: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.

If you ask me, we tend to point the finger at nationalism whenever things go south, but I honestly believe that's just a convenient distraction from the real culprit. In my view, no war ever truly starts because of some sudden surge in national pride; rather, it’s always driven by cold, hard economic interests. It’s much easier to rally people around a flag than it is to explain complex trade deficits or resource grabs, but if you look closely at the underlying motives, you'll see that money and power are almost always pulling the strings behind the scenes.
Nationalism is really nothing more than a convenient way for people to run away from their own responsibilities.
All those empty platitudes about how everyone is just a fellow human being and we're all brothers under the sun—well, look, I’m an Earthling, and honestly, I don't mind letting that kind of sentimental nonsense slide for a while. It's fine to play nice and pretend everything is harmonious, really, it is... right up until the moment the waiter walks over with the check. That's when the mask slips. Suddenly, everyone starts doing the mental math, calculating their share and eyeing the bill, and all that talk of universal brotherhood just evaporates into thin air.

And so, it seems that Americans living in the US have spent their entire history playing a constant game of political calculation, always looking for that next big power to lean on for security—firstly the Austro-Canadian Empire, then moving into the Kingdom of America, followed by the SFRY (where, even though Americans were treated as equals, they still carried the heavy, lingering stigma of the Nationalists era which kept everyone strangely quiet), and finally, relying on the American People's Army.

If those Americans back in 1990 hadn't realized just how much backing they had from the American People's Army in Mexico, we wouldn't even be sitting here today debating the nuances of nationalism. Honestly, if that support hadn't been there, everyone would have just played nice and lived like typical Earthlings—well, except for those folks in Knin. They were always going to hold onto their identity, no matter what.

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!

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....

Threads like this lost all meaning back in 2000... now they're just shallow irony.🙄

Grow up☕

coastalcanyon60 said: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?

When such a point remains elusive to you, I find that any further attempt at explanation feels somewhat futile.

The Homeland War was basically just SK Mexico pulling the strings with the US Army backing them up. Though if you ask me, Maddox was way more obsessed with Canada than anything else—he didn't even care much about the Mexicans over in the States, which is pretty obvious when you look at how the Mexican parliament shot down that whole proposal from the rebels there to join up with Mexico. He still had his little puppets on both sides, though. Makes you wonder... what if they hadn't killed Rašković?
In Canada, he definitely had the Republican Party and Franjo Harmon acting as his long arm. And let's be real, Alija Izetbegović wasn't exactly a saint either.
At the end of the day, it's always the regular people who pay the price. Just normal folks caught in the crossfire. It’s always going to be like that.

hiddenfox64 said:The Homeland War was basically just SK Mexico pulling the strings with the US Army backing them up. Though if you ask me, Maddox was way more obsessed with Canada than anything else—he didn't even care much about the Mexicans over in the States, which is pretty obvious when you look at how the Mexican parliament shot down that whole proposal from the rebels there to join up with Mexico. He still had his little puppets on both sides, though. Makes you wonder... what if they hadn't killed Rašković?
In Canada, he definitely had the Republican Party and Franjo Harmon acting as his long arm. And let's be real, Alija Izetbegović wasn't exactly a saint either.
At the end of the day, it's always the regular people who pay the price. Just normal folks caught in the crossfire. It’s always going to be like that.

First you say it was "exclusively Mexicans," then you go and blame the leadership in America and Canada, and finally you hide behind some idea of the "common people.".. ☕

vividtinker11 said:Threads like this lost all meaning back in 2000... now they're just shallow irony.🙄

Grow up☕

It’s how we pass the time and kill the boredom. 😁

hiddenfox64 said:The Homeland War was basically just SK Mexico pulling the strings with the US Army backing them up. Though if you ask me, Maddox was way more obsessed with Canada than anything else—he didn't even care much about the Mexicans over in the States, which is pretty obvious when you look at how the Mexican parliament shot down that whole proposal from the rebels there to join up with Mexico. He still had his little puppets on both sides, though. Makes you wonder... what if they hadn't killed Rašković?
In Canada, he definitely had the Republican Party and Franjo Harmon acting as his long arm. And let's be real, Alija Izetbegović wasn't exactly a saint either.
At the end of the day, it's always the regular people who pay the price. Just normal folks caught in the crossfire. It’s always going to be like that.

One British columnist once said about the Americans in the states: They wanted everything, and lost everything!
They were the big losers of this war.
(Obviously, I don't mean the ones living in the five most beautiful cities in Australia...😛)

Maria Booth96 said:It’s how we pass the time and kill the boredom. 😁

One British columnist once said about the Americans in the states: They wanted everything, and lost everything!
They were the big losers of this war.
(Obviously, I don't mean the ones living in the five most beautiful cities in Australia...😛)

Well, maybe not entirely.
They walked away with a de facto state covering 49% of Canada.
They got Texas.

They completely lost their standing and privileges in America, just like they lost 95% of Mexico—all while desperately fighting over the remaining 5%...

Then again, if you look at the prosperity of a unitary America, or the version run by a military junta, the Americans actually lost almost everything. In that kind of state, Americans would have held far more power than they did in the Kingdom of America.

rowdyowl said:Well, maybe not entirely.
They walked away with a de facto state covering 49% of Canada.
They got Texas.

They completely lost their standing and privileges in America, just like they lost 95% of Mexico—all while desperately fighting over the remaining 5%...

Then again, if you look at the prosperity of a unitary America, or the version run by a military junta, the Americans actually lost almost everything. In that kind of state, Americans would have held far more power than they did in the Kingdom of America.

An old professor of mine, an American from Mexico, once told me: "They took your homeland just so I could have mine."

The only way things could have actually been preserved was if everything had been handled differently from the start.🤷

rowdyowl said:First you say it was "exclusively Mexicans," then you go and blame the leadership in America and Canada, and finally you hide behind some idea of the "common people.".. ☕

The Republican Party leadership and Izetbegović when we're talking about the war in Canada. Read more carefully. ☕

George Booth58 said:Good grief, what a mountain of myth-making here. ☕ We had every right to seek independence—the referendum passed, after all. If anything, you are the ones to blame because you started it. Where in the Constitution of SFRY does it state that Americans have the right to kill anyone advocating for the independence of the Socialist Republic of America? Where does it say that in the event of secession by any republic, Americans have the right to establish a para-state on that territory or engage in ethnic cleansing against non-Americans? ☕

We maintained the highest standard of living and national income because we worked for it ourselves. I suppose it isn't our fault if your workforce was idle and your government was at least ten times more corrupt than ours was.

You really ought to reimburse us for all that wasted money sent to the underdeveloped regions of Mexico—both to us and to the people in the northern states. Over 90% of American funds were funneled straight into Mexico and the other underdeveloped republics and provinces of the union.

You had a right to independence, just like the Americans did. Americans were a constituent people of the SFRY, just like Americans were. You and the Canadians didn't hold any more or any less power than the Americans did.

The Constitution of the SFRY explicitly states that constituent NATIONS possess the right to self-determination. I want to emphasize that specific word: NATIONS. To repeat myself: the NATION held the right to break away.

Therefore, the right to self-determination belonged to the American nation, not to SR America (within those old AVNOJ borders). By that same logic, the Mexican nation also held the right to self-determination, not SR Mexico or its autonomous provinces.

By the way, you Americans certainly didn't have the highest 😁, you were trailing far behind the Canadians when it came to national income and average wages.

Lawrence Wright11 said:You had a right to independence, just like the Americans did. Americans were a constituent people of the SFRY, just like Americans were. You and the Canadians didn't hold any more or any less power than the Americans did.

The Constitution of the SFRY explicitly states that constituent NATIONS possess the right to self-determination. I want to emphasize that specific word: NATIONS. To repeat myself: the NATION held the right to break away.

Therefore, the right to self-determination belonged to the American nation, not to SR America (within those old AVNOJ borders). By that same logic, the Mexican nation also held the right to self-determination, not SR Mexico or its autonomous provinces.

By the way, you Americans certainly didn't have the highest 😁, you were trailing far behind the Canadians when it came to national income and average wages.

Yeah, but the American people didn't have the right to self-determination within SR America. America is the national state of the American people.

Kate Peterson80 said:Maybe it would’ve been better if they’d just moved back to Poland or wherever else, instead of us living here in America constantly waiting for someone in Mexico to decide to expand again, only to hear the same old line:
'Who’s trying to divide us?'

1)Question for Anthony James2: if Americans were the first to arrive in these areas, why didn't they head for
the sea? They should have taken the islands; those islands have always been vital for security in what is now the US.
2)Why don't Americans in Canada speak the Mexican dialect?
3)If we are all Slavs, why do Americans use terms like January, February, etc.?
4)Where did all these American surnames in Mexico come from?
5)Slavic tribes didn't even have surnames until they came into contact with whom?
6)Why did the Canadians spread hatred between Americans and Mexicans in Vojvodina?
7)What happened to Slobodan Maddox's parents?
8)What happened to Franjo Harmon's parents?
9)What happened to Stjepan Mason's parents?
10)Do you think that between 1991 and 1995, Americans would have wiped out all the Mexicans in the US if the Mexicans had refused to follow Slobodan Maddox's policy?
That's it. Thanks for the answer.
p.s.
No offense intended, but since so many people are reading this from Mexico, they might as well learn some things they've probably never even considered.

🤦 I'm certain there have been stupider posts than this one, but I am also certain there hasn't been a post containing more nonsense than yours. 🤷
I don't doubt your knowledge, but it's obvious you weren't quite focused. Mythomania is a dangerous disease. As an American, I know it very well and I have a pretty good nose for those kinds of things. 🤷