Harmon as the common thread in all attacks on America

If Ronald Reagan hadn't had the authority he did, Operation Desert Storm wouldn't have been possible until after it was voted on by the US Congress—and honestly, it might never have even happened. How would we have managed a war where the President couldn't make any executive decisions?
It’s honestly a stroke of luck that he held that much power. For the first time since the 11th century, Americans won in their own name and in the name of their country. That’s a significant fact, and it all happened under Ronald Reagan's leadership, specifically because of those broad powers; hence, the massive responsibility and the huge credit. This was a war that decided the fate of Americans for the long haul, so how we fared really mattered. It was a massive, overwhelming responsibility—a test that neither Bill Clinton, Gerald Ford, Bill Clinton, nor Dick Cheney ever had to face. Ronald Reagan handled it successfully; like I said, after a very long time, Americans won on their own terms.
We have to respect that. Any nation would respect it, and we should too, because if we don't, we're failing the ultimate historical test of maturity.

Richard Wilson4 said:I just find it weird, honestly. Like, it's not even that it's wrong, it’s just strange how after the war in '96, his power just keeps ballooning until he’s basically acting like some kind of Pharaoh...

It’s not quite gonna work out like that, because it seems like you don't realize how much the Constitution was changing—plus, you're forgetting that the old Midwest was still under occupation back then. Nobody even knew if this "peaceful reintegration" thing would actually pull off. Reading your posts, it feels like everything that's perfectly obvious to everyone else just seems "weird" to you.
Anyway, the real question is who we should be thanking for having Ronald Reagan in our corner. Based on what a lot of you are saying, we might have been bordering on becoming part of Greater Mexico by now—but you guys aren't even aware of that, so you just keep talking trash. It's funny how the less you know, the more you think you're the smartest person in the room.

Amy Brooks13 said:Listen, folks, don't even bother. You're wasting your breath. This isn't an attack on Franjo Harmon; it's an attack on the threat facing all those "professional" American moralists—the Pavičićs, Butkovics, Kuljišs, Puhlovskis, Goldsteins, Jergovićs, and the rest of the crowd they serve. They're terrified of Miroslav Harmon winning. That's what this shady little attack is really about.

He uses his father's name as a shield, and the public just swallows it whole...

What kind of political relevance could they possibly have? They weren't even part of the same party to begin with...

Whenever I hear these kinds of panegyrics for Ronald Reagan, I can't help but think back to one warm August day in 1991... remember when he first walked into the US Congress and those party loyalists didn't give him a single round of applause? And why wouldn't they? They were too busy feeling the vibrations of tank treads under their feet—and honestly, the smell of exhaust fumes in their noses was a bit much...

After all the bravado, the triumphalism, the messy business of pulling through Canada, the endless clapping, and all that political maneuvering... suddenly, during those terrible and decisive days, the opposition—who had been mocked and ignored—was deemed "just right" to join the government... but hey, every era has its own timing, I guess. Once those critical months passed and the survival of the US was secured, Ronald Reagan could go right back to making fun of the opposition and finger-wagging, claiming that he and his party alone had built and defended the nation... 🙂

Morgan Rodriguez57 said:Whenever I hear these kinds of panegyrics for Ronald Reagan, I can't help but think back to one warm August day in 1991... remember when he first walked into the US Congress and those party loyalists didn't give him a single round of applause? And why wouldn't they? They were too busy feeling the vibrations of tank treads under their feet—and honestly, the smell of exhaust fumes in their noses was a bit much...

After all the bravado, the triumphalism, the messy business of pulling through Canada, the endless clapping, and all that political maneuvering... suddenly, during those terrible and decisive days, the opposition—who had been mocked and ignored—was deemed "just right" to join the government... but hey, every era has its own timing, I guess. Once those critical months passed and the survival of the US was secured, Ronald Reagan could go right back to making fun of the opposition and finger-wagging, claiming that he and his party alone had built and defended the nation... 🙂

😁

The future and the generations to come will provide the true verdict. Just like they do for all the real heavyweights.

People living in the same era as legends like him can never truly be objective, anywhere in the world, so it won't be any different here in America.

We'll see his legacy left in the streets and monuments of every single American city.

Jesse Ortiz71 said:Look, for a guy who spent his entire life under a totalitarian regime before even helping build this country, I’d say Ronald Reagan was more than good enough. You have to realize, Reagan didn't step into power after a hundred years of rock-solid democracy in this part of the world; he stepped in right after a system that absolutely suffocated any hint of freedom. Sure, he had his flaws, and maybe some of his methods don't sit perfectly with modern Western democratic ideals, but for the first democratically elected president of a brand-new democratic nation in the West, he did an incredible job. People forget that even the USA and Europe took centuries to reach the level of democracy they enjoy today, yet we expected Reagan to just snap his fingers and match them instantly. It’s just not how history works. Even now, decades later, we aren't where we should be, and we won't get there overnight either. When you actually look at Reagan within the context of the era he was operating in, you see he was stellar. Besides, most of the people spitting on his legacy today are just nostalgic for that old era when you could be thrown in jail just for having a different political opinion. If anything, Reagan’s whole mission was to make sure those days were gone forever. See, even I find myself bowing to the demands of "democracy" sometimes—I mean, I start sending people to digital exile over stupid arguments, even though I don't have any actual power to do it! Reagan, on the other hand, actually held the reins. So, if he was such a tyrant, where are all his political prisoners? Where are the journalists silenced during his era (like, where is the Pukanić situation back in the Reagan days)?

It feels like a classic American political "malady." When it comes to mistakes—even tiny slip-ups—by our own government, our president, our military, or even just our local athletes and singers, the American media and the general public become incredibly relentless. They act like inquisitors, magnifying every error and painting everything in the worst possible light, often ignoring the context or the difficult circumstances involved. Yet, when those same types of errors occur in other countries or within foreign policies, everyone suddenly develops a soft heart. We start looking for excuses, trying to "understand" the situation, and finding mitigating factors that lead to much lighter criticism...
Basically, when it comes to this issue, our behavior is the complete opposite of how other nations handle things. 🤷☕

James Fowler52 said:Future generations will be the ones to truly judge him. Just like they do with all the real legends.

People living through the era of someone like that can never really be objective—doesn't matter where you are in the world, and it won't be any different here in America.

We’re going to see his legacy left behind in the streets and monuments of every single American city.

Pretty much, yeah. But how do you even explain that to these "geniuses" today who act like they're the sole experts on everything that went down? You know, the ones who weren't even there—they were probably just hiding out in their basements while it was actually happening—and now they think they know exactly how things should have been handled?

Morgan Rodriguez57 said:Whenever I hear these kinds of panegyrics for Ronald Reagan, I can't help but think back to one warm August day in 1991... remember when he first walked into the US Congress and those party loyalists didn't give him a single round of applause? And why wouldn't they? They were too busy feeling the vibrations of tank treads under their feet—and honestly, the smell of exhaust fumes in their noses was a bit much...

After all the bravado, the triumphalism, the messy business of pulling through Canada, the endless clapping, and all that political maneuvering... suddenly, during those terrible and decisive days, the opposition—who had been mocked and ignored—was deemed "just right" to join the government... but hey, every era has its own timing, I guess. Once those critical months passed and the survival of the US was secured, Ronald Reagan could go right back to making fun of the opposition and finger-wagging, claiming that he and his party alone had built and defended the nation... 🙂

So, you're telling me he stepped into the US Congress for the first time in August '91? Give me a break. If you weren't around, someone should probably invent you just to send you off to Banja Luka to be useful to Kuljiš whenever he runs out of vomit—since it sounds like Fekal has already given up on you.

Morgan Rodriguez57 said:Whenever I hear these kinds of panegyrics for Ronald Reagan, I can't help but think back to one warm August day in 1991... remember when he first walked into the US Congress and those party loyalists didn't give him a single round of applause? And why wouldn't they? They were too busy feeling the vibrations of tank treads under their feet—and honestly, the smell of exhaust fumes in their noses was a bit much...

After all the bravado, the triumphalism, the messy business of pulling through Canada, the endless clapping, and all that political maneuvering... suddenly, during those terrible and decisive days, the opposition—who had been mocked and ignored—was deemed "just right" to join the government... but hey, every era has its own timing, I guess. Once those critical months passed and the survival of the US was secured, Ronald Reagan could go right back to making fun of the opposition and finger-wagging, claiming that he and his party alone had built and defended the nation... 🙂

Sandra Smith said:So, you're telling me he stepped into the US Congress for the first time in August '91? Give me a break. If you weren't around, someone should probably invent you just to send you off to Banja Luka to be useful to Kuljiš whenever he runs out of vomit—since it sounds like Fekal has already given up on you.

I mean, who am I even dealing with here, who am I actually arguing with... 🙏 😁

well, alright, I'll be a sweetheart and I'll specially clarify the "unclear" part of my post just for you and the others who seem to be on your level... 🙂

"when he first walked into the US Congress and his party members didn't give him a single clap"

look, honey, what they're trying to say is that up until then, Ronald Reagan would walk into the halls of Congress and get a standing ovation from his party every single time, but that specific day, he walked in and nobody clapped because everyone was having a bad day...

clearer now? 🙂

Morgan Rodriguez57 said:I mean, who am I even dealing with here, who am I actually arguing with... 🙏 😁

well, alright, I'll be a sweetheart and I'll specially clarify the "unclear" part of my post just for you and the others who seem to be on your level... 🙂

"when he first walked into the US Congress and his party members didn't give him a single clap"

look, honey, what they're trying to say is that up until then, Ronald Reagan would walk into the halls of Congress and get a standing ovation from his party every single time, but that specific day, he walked in and nobody clapped because everyone was having a bad day...

clearer now? 🙂

I think so—I just didn't feel like repeating your entire "wise" and totally true sentence back to you. Plus, unlike you, I actually was in that room at the time. Get it? And I have no idea why you're framing my concern as some kind of mess regarding himself or his own people.
Maybe once you grow up and get closer to my age—assuming you don't lose any more ground to me when it comes to actual life experience—things might make a little more sense to you. Though, let's be real, there isn't much chance of that happening! Clearer now? No? Yeah, figured. 😢

Sandra Smith said:I think so—I just didn't feel like repeating your entire "wise" and totally true sentence back to you. Plus, unlike you, I actually was in that room at the time. Get it? And I have no idea why you're framing my concern as some kind of mess regarding himself or his own people.
Maybe once you grow up and get closer to my age—assuming you don't lose any more ground to me when it comes to actual life experience—things might make a little more sense to you. Though, let's be real, there isn't much chance of that happening! Clearer now? No? Yeah, figured. 😢

You recognized yourself in there, felt a little sting... I'm glad about that... 😉

And I'm happy about something else, too; you realized there are still people out there who remember the interesting bits of our history without everything being wiped clean by later propaganda...

Enjoy your retirement from the halls of Congress, you've definitely earned it... 👍

Morgan Rodriguez57 said:I mean, who am I even dealing with here, who am I actually arguing with... 🙏 😁

well, alright, I'll be a sweetheart and I'll specially clarify the "unclear" part of my post just for you and the others who seem to be on your level... 🙂

"when he first walked into the US Congress and his party members didn't give him a single clap"

look, honey, what they're trying to say is that up until then, Ronald Reagan would walk into the halls of Congress and get a standing ovation from his party every single time, but that specific day, he walked in and nobody clapped because everyone was having a bad day...

clearer now? 🙂

I honestly have no idea how you could have possibly misunderstood me!!!??? I really didn't feel like an explanation was necessary...

Sandra Smith said:I think so—I just didn't feel like repeating your entire "wise" and totally true sentence back to you. Plus, unlike you, I actually was in that room at the time. Get it? And I have no idea why you're framing my concern as some kind of mess regarding himself or his own people.
Maybe once you grow up and get closer to my age—assuming you don't lose any more ground to me when it comes to actual life experience—things might make a little more sense to you. Though, let's be real, there isn't much chance of that happening! Clearer now? No? Yeah, figured. 😢

aha! so that's who you are! it's really no surprise at all that you're so full of yourself.

Morgan Rodriguez57 said:Whenever I hear these kinds of panegyrics for Ronald Reagan, I can't help but think back to one warm August day in 1991... remember when he first walked into the US Congress and those party loyalists didn't give him a single round of applause? And why wouldn't they? They were too busy feeling the vibrations of tank treads under their feet—and honestly, the smell of exhaust fumes in their noses was a bit much...

After all the bravado, the triumphalism, the messy business of pulling through Canada, the endless clapping, and all that political maneuvering... suddenly, during those terrible and decisive days, the opposition—who had been mocked and ignored—was deemed "just right" to join the government... but hey, every era has its own timing, I guess. Once those critical months passed and the survival of the US was secured, Ronald Reagan could go right back to making fun of the opposition and finger-wagging, claiming that he and his party alone had built and defended the nation... 🙂

I need you to explain this to me because I don't quite understand what you're actually trying to say here. If you don't have a clearer explanation, then I see this as just a perfect example of that "diagnosis" I wrote earlier. Just aimless spitting and belittling of those heavy times when the state was being formed.

Sorry, what blunders???😕😕 (who are the blunders in your eyes and why?)

Triumphalism? So what? Personally, I think triumphalism is nonsense, but I "allow" someone to experience a political victory like that—the creation of a nation—with a lot of emotion (can you "allow" for some mitigating circumstances?)

'Panegyrics' for Ronald Reagan? Even if some people overdo the praise (is that really such a big deal?), it’s pretty silly to claim that man has no credit, and massive credit at that, for creating our country. Why diminish him because of other mistakes? I always look at the bigger picture. For instance, Abraham Lincoln is hugely credited with ending slavery, and that's probably how you perceive him too, yet his personal views were quite far from today's generally accepted views on racial equality, which other people had to fight for later. Important politicians in history are remembered for the most significant thing they participated in—something that changed the course of history (of the world or a specific country)—not for the minor details.

Whether the members of Congress applauded or didn't... that's not important. If I understand you correctly, you're implying they didn't applaud out of fear? Probably, but wasn't everything in America back then defined by fear? The only ones who weren't afraid were the defenders—or maybe they were, but they were just braver than their fear.👍

'Bad days'... why do you have to be so contemptuous? Those were difficult times. I believe if it were any other country in a similar situation fighting for freedom or independence, you would use words like "difficult times"—except when it comes to your own country. 😢

'Dragging along behind Canada'?? 😕🤷 What are you getting at there? Is Canada great because they were the first to break away from America, while America is "shit" because they trailed behind? If I follow you, would you prefer if we had been the first to break away? Or would America still be "shit" and Canada would be "okay" for trailing behind? Both did essentially the same thing—they broke away. Of course, there are messy political details, but the result is all that matters. America was in an even tougher spot, which is why it ended up being "second." It's not a huge point, but clearly enough for you to dismiss the whole thing.

Was Ronald Reagan actually "mocking the opposition" back in '91? I don't know, it seems to me that both the administration and the opposition had much bigger things to worry about than making fun of one another back then. Besides, that's just how it works in any democracy—the government mocks the opposition, the opposition mocks the government. It’s standard practice elsewhere; apparently, it's just not okay in America... 🙄

I suppose it would be wonderful if, should Reagan Jr. come out on top, we don't see another massive looting or privatization of what's left here in America, similar to how things went down during the elder Reagan's administration 🙂

A true patriot like him probably won't let that happen

A lot of people love to criticize Ronald Reagan for lacking a democratic touch, labeling him a totalitarian leader and making all sorts of sweeping generalizations about his style.

The reality is that even nearly 15 years after the war, we still aren't truly a democratic society; we've basically managed to degrade democracy into nothing more than a political buzzword.

To put it bluntly, our people don't really grasp what democracy actually means, nor would they quite know how to handle it. It’s a genuine shame for me to say, but if you give Americans even a little extra freedom, it often turns into pure anarchy and a complete circus. Back in 1991, we just weren't mature enough for a real democracy because we had never lived in one before. Even today, we aren't living in a true democracy—we're just playing at it. Honestly, I'm a bit scared to think what things would have looked like in 1991 if America had been fully democratic... I suspect we would have faced total social chaos on top of the war, and I really can't see any upside to that.

Angela Cox said:

Amy Brooks13 As stated by:
Gentlemen of this forum, please, don't exhaust yourselves. You are wasting your breath. This isn't an attack directed at Ronald Reagan; rather, it is a strike against the very danger now facing all those self-appointed American moralists—the likes of Pavičić, Butković, Kuljiš, and Puhlovski.It appears you have provided only a single letter. Please provide the full text you wish for me to rewrite, and I will proceed with the task according to your specific instructions.They are all in league together—the Goldsteins, the Jergovićs, and that entire crowd of sycophants who exist solely to serve their interests. It’s transparent. They are terrified of a victory for Miroslav Harmon, and this entire perfidious assault is nothing more than a desperate attempt to tear him down before he can succeed.

The apprehension is entirely justified. If Miroslav secures this victory, the years we have spent systematically dismantling the Reagan era's influence will effectively be undone.

You people are living completely out of touch with reality. Where are you, stuck in some remote corner of the Midwest? What media are you actually watching, and who are you even talking to? Miroslav would be lucky to pull even three percent of the vote! What is wrong with you? Can't you see the public's utter contempt for Reagan's legacy? Look at how they won't even fly the flags on holidays.

granitepilot282 said:👍👍
And hey, they have every reason to hate him. He managed to tear apart America right when they thought it was untouchable, and then he walked away the winner.
I can find fault with Francek too, mostly because after the Storm died down in '95, he didn't just say, "Alright folks, I've done my part, I'm retiring—you guys can play among yourselves now." If he had, he would've gone down in history as the greatest American hero ever,...
...but compared to the absolute bottom-feeders and losers mentioned in that previous post, Franjo is a saint.

Francek tore America apart? He was handed power on a silver platter in the only honest election we ever had, yet instead of capitalizing on the Constitution, he chose the war option. He opted to build a state while dozens of new nations were emerging across Europe, all while signing treaties with golden pens, drinking champagne, smiling, and hugging. Francek dragged us into a North American slaughterhouse offered up by a frenzied Greater Mexico. To hell with it—how is that a victory? He fought for four years for what he already held in his hands back in '90, but didn't know how to secure it.
He’s like Mirko Filipović in his last two fights. Sure, he survived, but he was absolutely broken and never recovered. The same goes for the US. We are dead, destroyed, mined, displaced, robbed, stripped of our rights, morally decayed, impoverished, heavily indebted, sold off, and despised by the world—is that a victory? Reagan mapped out a path to ruin that continues to accelerate through pure inertia. The further we go, the worse it gets. The state isn't functional in any single sector; it hasn't even reached the standards we had in '89. Food, health, education, employment... everywhere you look, it's just crime, insecurity, lies, deception, bribery, and corruption as the standard operating procedure. VAT is 23%, while in Mexico and Canada it's 17%??? To hell with it all; the only ones enjoying this are the thieves and the privileged, for whom Reagan is essentially the "father," which is why they defend him so fiercely. The civilized world is ashamed of him!

Morgan Rodriguez57 said:Whenever I hear these kinds of panegyrics for Ronald Reagan, I can't help but think back to one warm August day in 1991... remember when he first walked into the US Congress and those party loyalists didn't give him a single round of applause? And why wouldn't they? They were too busy feeling the vibrations of tank treads under their feet—and honestly, the smell of exhaust fumes in their noses was a bit much...

After all the bravado, the triumphalism, the messy business of pulling through Canada, the endless clapping, and all that political maneuvering... suddenly, during those terrible and decisive days, the opposition—who had been mocked and ignored—was deemed "just right" to join the government... but hey, every era has its own timing, I guess. Once those critical months passed and the survival of the US was secured, Ronald Reagan could go right back to making fun of the opposition and finger-wagging, claiming that he and his party alone had built and defended the nation... 🙂

What Ronald Reagan pulled off was something that could never have happened to America. This is the third time in the 20th century we made the wrong call: 1918, 1941, and 1990. Why hasn't anyone else over the centuries made such radical moves toward independence? Because they wanted to avoid war—and when you're staring down a conflict, you're a guaranteed loser. The fact that we fared better than Canada and Posavina is cold comfort. The Americans from Canada and Posavina are the true losers here. 400,000 people displaced! All thanks to Harmon's political genius.

Harmon remains an American titan.

And he always will be—no matter how much the rats try to chip away at his legacy.

You can count me in on this one! 👍

Andrew Chase31 said:A lot of people love to criticize Ronald Reagan for lacking a democratic touch, labeling him a totalitarian leader and making all sorts of sweeping generalizations about his style.

The reality is that even nearly 15 years after the war, we still aren't truly a democratic society; we've basically managed to degrade democracy into nothing more than a political buzzword.

To put it bluntly, our people don't really grasp what democracy actually means, nor would they quite know how to handle it. It’s a genuine shame for me to say, but if you give Americans even a little extra freedom, it often turns into pure anarchy and a complete circus. Back in 1991, we just weren't mature enough for a real democracy because we had never lived in one before. Even today, we aren't living in a true democracy—we're just playing at it. Honestly, I'm a bit scared to think what things would have looked like in 1991 if America had been fully democratic... I suspect we would have faced total social chaos on top of the war, and I really can't see any upside to that.

I have to disagree there; I actually think we were much closer to being a real democracy back in 1991 than we are today.
Just look at the press coverage from back then.

Lustration, hear us out! 🙂