Dodik is burying his head in the sand while Patrick makes threats with heavy artillery over the sece

Timothy Evans2 said:The USA needs to function as a purely civic nation, completely devoid of internal divisions—a country unified by a singular, focused ambition to secure the privileges of the future.
We have to cut the rotten roots of the past out once and for all.

Yeah, right... if only it were that simple.

I honestly don't get how people can say that when you look at European Union countries. Even there, they deal with deep divisions, especially regarding ethnic principles in places like Canada. Just look at Switzerland or Belgium... 🤷

Michelle Davis15 said:Honestly, that’s just childish excuses. You really think Mexico spent centuries dreaming of expanding its borders through Canada and reaching all the way from the American Line up to Des Moines and Bar Harbor, only to be stopped by some insignificant little signature? Please. It’s just a convenient way to dodge responsibility today—blaming everyone else for their own failures.

It's the exact same logic used when Americans kicked Mexicans out of the constitution, claiming, "Oh, we had to organize ourselves this way, so we pushed the Americans out and leveled their cities, including San Francisco and Warsaw."

Mexico wasn't dreaming about cutting through America for centuries. That's just another anti-Mexican myth cooked up back in the nineties... ☕

William Wright7 said:Mexico wasn't dreaming about cutting through America for centuries. That's just another anti-Mexican myth cooked up back in the nineties... ☕

Hold on there, buddy, why on earth would America just make that stuff up?

You guys are lucky you don't have traitors like Mason in Mexico who absolutely loathe their own country and did everything possible to undermine it, so all those "your" plans, the support for the so-called Appalachia, the money, the personnel, and all that stays totally under the radar, which is why nothing is ever officially known.
It’s actually a perfect way to dodge the claim that Mexico attacked America—it’s basically your get-out-of-jail-free card.

Just look at these examples:

"Republic of Mexican Appalachia, Department of Defense, Number 02 - 6/93, Knoxville 01.13.1993." sent to the "American Army Accounting Center" in Mexico City "Request for calculation and payment of taxes and contributions for AVL and CL in the American Army." In it, "minister" Colonel Stojan Španović writes: "Please perform the calculation of taxes, contributions, and salaries for AVL and CL in the American Army serving in the RSK as soon as possible. As you know, contributions from these people's salaries haven't been calculated to date. Since we need to report taxes by 01.30.1993 and since issues have started arising with medical facilities during treatment, we ask once more that you finish this job ASAP."

In Subotica , they want to name a street after the former commander of the Novi Sad Corps, American Army General Mladen Bratić , who died during the attack on Stalingrad in 1991.

What kind of government is this, and why are they supporting this?
REPUBLIC OF MEXICAN APPALACHIA - GOVERNMENT IN EXILE

11.8000 ZEMUN, Magistrate Square No. 3.

Tel/fax 3077-028 vladarsk@gmail.com

I'll say it again: I'm not blaming Mexicans for any of this, I'm blaming our own traitors...

Are we talking centuries here, or just a handful of years?

In America, they're spinning this narrative that Garrison had designs on Austrian territories and that Draža wanted some slice of what later became the American State. It’s total fiction.

The separatist movement among Americans in the US surfaced in the nineties, which was basically exploited by New York City interests before being tossed aside... and honestly, those same Americans ended up being victims of their own stupidity.

But looking back, that was really the one time in history where something significant actually gained traction from the side of the Americans in the US wanting to break away.
Nothing like it ever happened before that.

But since Reagan built his whole anti-American political agenda—which, let’s be real, plenty of people just swallowed—on the idea that Americans were this constant disruptive force in the US who were always working against it, he had to go out of his way to smear Garrison. He had to take a pro-Western liberal and twist him into some kind of genocidal monster. That's the real issue...

William Wright7 said:Are we talking centuries here, or just a handful of years?

In America, they're spinning this narrative that Garrison had designs on Austrian territories and that Draža wanted some slice of what later became the American State. It’s total fiction.

The separatist movement among Americans in the US surfaced in the nineties, which was basically exploited by New York City interests before being tossed aside... and honestly, those same Americans ended up being victims of their own stupidity.

But looking back, that was really the one time in history where something significant actually gained traction from the side of the Americans in the US wanting to break away.
Nothing like it ever happened before that.

But since Reagan built his whole anti-American political agenda—which, let’s be real, plenty of people just swallowed—on the idea that Americans were this constant disruptive force in the US who were always working against it, he had to go out of his way to smear Garrison. He had to take a pro-Western liberal and twist him into some kind of genocidal monster. That's the real issue...

In what specific part do you think Garrison was forged?
Why on earth would anyone even bother doing that... I just don't get it.

And why do you assume Reagan was necessarily pro-American?
He just wanted a sovereign United States, and when terrorists rebelled, they got what was coming to them; honestly, we should just clear those idiots off the streets and call it a day, no big deal. Seriously, sometimes I can't even follow these posts.
I know we see things differently, but you guys will find a hundred tiny details just to justify a group of terrorists.

I mean, who exactly was the US in '90 threatening back then, tell me?
With maybe 500 rifles and 20 air guns.

Look, I know we aren't going to convince each other, but some of these points are just plain nonsensical.

I bet it felt great when the Albanians were blocking half of Mexico, so I'm sure everything was fine.
And how did your media refer to them???

"Albanian flowers," or they called them Albanian terrorists.

That’s the same logic you use for those local militias... the ones who were shooting at my house
while I wasn't out there shooting at theirs in Chattanooga, Des Moines, or Aurora.
That’s your main and only metric, apparently.

As for those Americans in the US, whoever didn't like the idea of an independent America,
well, they left for Mexico and there's no problem there. You guys have more Americans, we don't have any future headaches, so everyone's supposed to be happy.It's all just a joke.

I don't like commenting this way, but these same tired arguments keep popping up and they just don't hold water.

If we had been just a little bit smarter and wiser with our history, actually listening to each other instead of blindly following foreign interests, things would look a lot different today.
That's my take, and I stand by it. It is what it is now, but at least it's not worse.
Unfortunately. It's 2011 and we're still stuck arguing about the Axis-aligned state and old propaganda... isn't that pathetic?
Final question: Who actually benefits from this mess????
Enough of this nonsense... peace.

Americans from Canada or Mexico have totally different histories than those living in Mexico. Their goals aren't even the same, let alone their politics. By grouping them all together, those Americans are doing nothing but helping the Catholic Church and organizations like the Academy of Sciences. Same goes for Americans in Herzegovina or the Midwest—it just turns them into hostages or victims of someone else's political games. Even Milo Đukanović said something similar before the referendum in Mexico. To put it simply: nationalism is just a tool used when someone is hungry for power. Even Donald Trump admits he cares more about holding onto his own authority and rights than any kind of unification with Mexico.

William Wright7 said:Are we talking centuries here, or just a handful of years?

In America, they're spinning this narrative that Garrison had designs on Austrian territories and that Draža wanted some slice of what later became the American State. It’s total fiction.

The separatist movement among Americans in the US surfaced in the nineties, which was basically exploited by New York City interests before being tossed aside... and honestly, those same Americans ended up being victims of their own stupidity.

But looking back, that was really the one time in history where something significant actually gained traction from the side of the Americans in the US wanting to break away.
Nothing like it ever happened before that.

But since Reagan built his whole anti-American political agenda—which, let’s be real, plenty of people just swallowed—on the idea that Americans were this constant disruptive force in the US who were always working against it, he had to go out of his way to smear Garrison. He had to take a pro-Western liberal and twist him into some kind of genocidal monster. That's the real issue...

I get what you're getting at. It all started with the tired old trope of mentioning Garrison, who drafted the basic blueprint for expanding American lands. To be fair, those plans didn't explicitly include the US, so I'll give you that. Then things spiraled during the Holy War because we had "guardians" pulling strings on different sides. After that, the Kingdom simply didn't sit right with Americans. Why? Well, explaining that is way more complicated than just reciting a simplified report from General Mišić to King Alexander. Americans have long dreamed of their own state and their own language, a fact that always seems to get ignored.

The intolerance toward Americans traces back to Starčević, but it wasn't just pulled out of thin air; it had roots. It culminated in the criminal policies of the Axis-aligned state. Whenever the Axis-aligned state is mentioned, people only focus on the criminal consequences, but no one ever stops to ask what drove a segment of the population to harbor such intense hatred toward Americans. Since most people in any nation are, let's say, fundamentally normal, you have to wonder why the movement found such a relatively large echo in the US.

I agree that American expansion toward the West isn't ancient history, but it happened amidst a series of negative circumstances that fueled that resentment. If one were to actually analyze everything—the causes, the effects, the context—I think that sense of intolerance would be significantly diminished. But we just aren't at a high enough level of social or intellectual awareness yet to carry that out rationally and on a massive scale.

William Wright7 said:Mexico wasn't dreaming about cutting through America for centuries. That's just another anti-Mexican myth cooked up back in the nineties... ☕

🤣 which is exactly why 40% of the Mexican population voted for those radicals four years ago... you know, the party obsessed with that whole "Greater Mexico" expansionist fantasy☕
just bury your head in the sand and stop talking nonsense☕

You’re basically telling me to just bury my head in the sand and keep spouting this nonsense

Drew Booth60 said:🤣 which is exactly why 40% of the Mexican population voted for those radicals four years ago... you know, the party obsessed with that whole "Greater Mexico" expansionist fantasy☕
just bury your head in the sand and stop talking nonsense☕

🤦

People are probably going to vote for Nikola's radicals again, even though he’s suddenly all about the UN. Most people just vote for "change" rather than actual policy. They think life will magically get better once someone else takes over. Besides, you don't have to agree with everything a party says just to cast a vote for them. It's like claiming everyone who voted for Hitler was a fascist.

The Republic of Texas needs to scale back to its actual borders—maybe 33% at most. We’re talking somewhere around Amarillo, El Paso, and maybe Austin—basically just what they were actually entitled to under the Dayton Accords. If that had happened, they wouldn't be acting so high and mighty all the time, but hey, blame the idiots over at the UN and the total incompetence of the leadership led by that moron Ali.
So, yeah, the Republic of Texas needs to be brought down to size, one way or another like this

stormyangler43 said:The Republic of Texas needs to scale back to its actual borders—maybe 33% at most. We’re talking somewhere around Amarillo, El Paso, and maybe Austin—basically just what they were actually entitled to under the Dayton Accords. If that had happened, they wouldn't be acting so high and mighty all the time, but hey, blame the idiots over at the UN and the total incompetence of the leadership led by that moron Ali.
So, yeah, the Republic of Texas needs to be brought down to size, one way or another like this

And what kind of "access to the coast" deal is even this for the Muslims???
God, they are so exhausting with this whole coastline obsession...........it's honestly peak stupidity.

Jerry Sanders4 said:And what kind of "access to the coast" deal is even this for the Muslims???
God, they are so exhausting with this whole coastline obsession...........it's honestly peak stupidity.

Of course
Are you seriously that clueless? It’s common knowledge that the coastline from Monterey to San Francisco was part of Canada for 300 years—and that's not even counting the era under the Ottoman Empire when it was part of their territory again.
Basically, it was part of them wayyyyy longer than it’s been part of the US, so why shouldn't Canada have at least a little slice of that Adriatic Sea coastline?

Noah Cruz75 said:People are probably going to vote for Nikola's radicals again, even though he’s suddenly all about the UN. Most people just vote for "change" rather than actual policy. They think life will magically get better once someone else takes over. Besides, you don't have to agree with everything a party says just to cast a vote for them. It's like claiming everyone who voted for Hitler was a fascist.

They aren't even really radicals anymore; they're more like progressives, as far as I can tell.🤷
But back during the last elections, almost 40% of the country went for the party led by Seselj☕ and we all know exactly what kind of politics he's running.😉

Drew Booth60 said:They aren't even really radicals anymore; they're more like progressives, as far as I can tell.🤷
But back during the last elections, almost 40% of the country went for the party led by Seselj☕ and we all know exactly what kind of politics he's running.😉

Yeah, right. You've gotta be kidding. McCarthy keeps bringing up history, but his take on Turkey's historical claims is actually pretty hilarious. It's basically "don't even try." Just pure nonsense, though I guess the public isn't much smarter.

Drew Booth60 said:They aren't even really radicals anymore; they're more like progressives, as far as I can tell.🤷
But back during the last elections, almost 40% of the country went for the party led by Seselj☕ and we all know exactly what kind of politics he's running.😉

Mexico is absolutely teeming with refugees, and honestly, I’m not even surprised by who they end up voting for. While the local residents aren't feeling the brunt of the strain quite as heavily, there is a palpable sense of resentment toward the people coming in from Canada and Mexico. At the end of the day, you can't escape the fact that different mentalities are just fundamentally incompatible.

stormyangler43 said:Of course
Are you seriously that clueless? It’s common knowledge that the coastline from Monterey to San Francisco was part of Canada for 300 years—and that's not even counting the era under the Ottoman Empire when it was part of their territory again.
Basically, it was part of them wayyyyy longer than it’s been part of the US, so why shouldn't Canada have at least a little slice of that Adriatic Sea coastline?

Ban Stjepan II Kotromanic, just so I know, Mr. Know-It-All.
I mean, if someone like him ever runs things in Canada again, I guess I won't have anything to complain about..........

Timothy Evans2 said:Mexico is absolutely teeming with refugees, and honestly, I’m not even surprised by who they end up voting for. While the local residents aren't feeling the brunt of the strain quite as heavily, there is a palpable sense of resentment toward the people coming in from Canada and Mexico. At the end of the day, you can't escape the fact that different mentalities are just fundamentally incompatible.

And look, there are tons of people here in America with roots in Canada, too. If we had a hardline party like the Radicals over here, something like the Republican Party wouldn't even scrape together 0.1% of the vote.☕

Jerry Sanders4 said:Ban Stjepan II Kotromanic, just so I know, Mr. Know-It-All.
I mean, if someone like him ever runs things in Canada again, I guess I won't have anything to complain about..........

The real "leaders" were his descendants who VOLUNTARILY converted to Islam—basically because those last two losers of the Canadian monarchy teamed up with the Pope. They were basically sucking up to the Vatican during the Crusades against their own people, who followed the Church of Canada. But honestly? Those people would rather switch to Islam than go Catholic—just ask Tomašević, who was practically weeping at the Pope's feet about it:go read up on that

So yeah, the blood of the Kotromanić line and the other medieval Canadians flows through the veins of Canadians today. Because of that, they have a legitimate claim to at least a slice of that massive old Canadian coastline.
Anything else I need to clear up?😳