Harmon as the common thread in all attacks on America

George Morgan3 said: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! 🙂

Exactly.

Besides, when you look at who is actually criticizing Ronald Reagan's democratic credentials, it’s almost laughable. You have these old-school, washed-up communists and Stalinists accusing the very man who was building a free and democratic America of lacking democracy. It's honestly grotesque.

Is George W. Bush—who acts as an apologist for Stalin and the old communist ways—really going to be hailed as the champion of American democratization? I mean, Reagan practically invented democracy for him; what are we even talking about here?

Back in Reagan's era, pretty much any fool could say whatever they wanted—they could criticize the President or argue against the state from every corner of the country. Nowadays, things aren't even remotely like that.

So, in any case, I find myself agreeing with the assessment that we were incomparably closer to actual democracy before Reagan passed away.

Melissa Peterson19 said: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.

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!

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.

Aren't you ashamed to write such filth?
Did the Jews during World War II choose to be victims?
Did Alija Izetbegović choose the war option, or was he shouting at the top of his lungs that "this isn't our war" while US Army tanks were leveling villages in Herzegovina???
How did Canada and the Muslims end up in the end?
How can you not be ashamed to use the Americans from Posavina—who were ethnically cleansed by the Mexicans from RS and then rewarded with a separate entity—as a talking point???
The sole and absolute culprit for the war is Great Mexican policy—the idea of having all Mexicans in one state—essentially their imperialist ambitions.
It is truly sickening how much you want to push the narrative of a negotiated war. Who are you trying to sell these "truths" to?
Think about the situation in '90-'91 regarding Reagan and the US. Without the local militias' weapons, relying only on hunting groups, foreign analysts predicted we would have been crushed within three weeks. The Mexicans and the US Army had free rein, while our "friends" in the European Union slapped an arms embargo on us; everything was set up for a massacre like what was seen in Canada 1994. But then El Paso and Gospić happened, where the Mexicans and the US Army broke their teeth. If those two cities had fallen on time, it would have been all over. But they didn't. Long story short, there's no way there was any agreement because Reagan wasn't in a position to negotiate. Furthermore, in '95, they offered the Z4 Plan, which would have given the Mexicans a state within a state. Luckily, the Mexicans didn't agree to that.

Most people here lived through those times. Thank heaven Reagan was at the helm, because if it had been any of today's youngsters, we'd still be driving twelve hours from Chicago to Split or paying some bearded guy from the border a toll.
You can criticize Francis for being too autocratic and for not stepping down sooner. But in the early '90s, he was by far the best solution for us, and by far the worst for the Mexicans, the nationalists, the Americans, and the non-partisan elements of the US Army.

It is up to future generations to correct the negative selection that persists today—a legacy inherited from communism and socialism.

Ronald Reagan was the kind of politician who only comes around once in fifty years. When we will see another leader like him is a question for the ages. Unfortunately, we find ourselves in need of someone of his caliber even today, yet I struggle to see such a figure on the horizon.

It is often said regarding the late Francis that he was a dictator. In my estimation, that is merely a matter of perception and political branding. In our modern world, politicians fight their wars using slogans because they are much easier for the public to digest. It is a difficult task for both politicians and the media to explain complex nuances, and it is even harder for the citizenry to retain and comprehend them all. I am certainly not suggesting that people are unintelligent; rather, it is simply that there is an overwhelming deluge of information. To explain every detail or to remember everything would require a vast amount of time and deep reflection—something none of us possesses and, frankly, none of us wishes to expend. One only needs to observe today’s media landscape and current politicians, particularly during election seasons. Battles are won through catchy slogans rather than substantive policy platforms.

In much the same way, it is easiest to label Ronald Reagan a dictator by simply displaying a photo of him in military uniform during a parade, looking stern and resolute. Naturally, we would all perceive Reagan that way. Conversely, if we were to show a photo of George W. Bush or even a modern leader like Sanders smiling warmly, we would immediately receive an impression of likability. Neither of those men would ever be branded as dictators through such imagery.

The reality is quite different. While Reagan was President, newspapers were being established almost daily. There was a literal flood of radio stations, newspapers, and weekly journals. Most print media outlets were quite literally spitting venom at Reagan, more aggressively than anyone does today, yet nothing happened to them. Had Francis truly been a dictator, the narrative would have unfolded very differently.
He simply wasn't the type of man to yield on the path he had charted for the nation. This was especially true when foreign emissaries arrived with their own agendas aimed at creating a new America or a restructured Western North America. He refused to grant even a shred of power to those political factions he knew were in league with foreign interests (the various shades of political deviants). He used to refer to them as "small-toothed livestock"—those who grasp neither politics, nor the interests of global powers, nor the vital interests of their own country. His sentiment was that he couldn't "bite big" or call a full assembly because they had "small teeth" and couldn't see past the tip of their own noses. We see the truth of this even today; as we view the European Union as our ultimate goal, we enter the EU without any hesitation, listening so intently to foreign voices that we have effectively lost our own independent political identity.
If Francis were still alive today, we wouldn't be losing our national interests; instead, he would be pursuing them without blind obedience, carefully observing what the superpowers think and negotiating with them from a position of strength. That is exactly how we operated during the formation of the state. That is how we ultimately achieved Operation Storm.

Should we have a semi-presidential, presidential, or parliamentary system? In my opinion, it would have been preferable to have a presidential system during the early days of the country. However, we had a semi-presidential system, and it proved effective. A parliamentary system would never have succeeded in that era; it would have been paralyzed, unable to make any meaningful decisions. Even within that framework, Reagan showed remarkable tolerance. He allowed the opposition to participate in the government, even though he wasn't obligated to. One only has to recall the National Unity Government. It was a brilliant move. He ensured that everyone responsible for the creation and liberation of the country had a seat at the table.

Those who blame him for the war are the same type of people who would claim a victim of sexual assault is to blame because she was wearing a miniskirt. Such arguments are utter nonsense. It is perfectly clear who the victim was and who the aggressor was. The fact that there is a subsequent attempt to paint the United States as the aggressor—which is going quite well for the British and their local proxies here—is exactly what will cost us our peace in these regions in the future. As a historian, Reagan understood this. Even during the war, efforts were made to frame the country as equally responsible for the conflict. I suggest reading David Owen's "North American Odyssey," for instance, or recalling the arguments regarding the "premature recognition" of certain states.

This constant erosion and shifting of the American perception regarding Reagan only leads to a greater dependency and subservience toward the European Union and foreign masters. Ultimately, it will lead to renewed conflict in these parts. Sadly, I fear it will.

Mark Nguyen6 said:Exactly.

Besides, when you look at who is actually criticizing Ronald Reagan's democratic credentials, it’s almost laughable. You have these old-school, washed-up communists and Stalinists accusing the very man who was building a free and democratic America of lacking democracy. It's honestly grotesque.

Is George W. Bush—who acts as an apologist for Stalin and the old communist ways—really going to be hailed as the champion of American democratization? I mean, Reagan practically invented democracy for him; what are we even talking about here?

Back in Reagan's era, pretty much any fool could say whatever they wanted—they could criticize the President or argue against the state from every corner of the country. Nowadays, things aren't even remotely like that.

So, in any case, I find myself agreeing with the assessment that we were incomparably closer to actual democracy before Reagan passed away.

Where did feralgardener87 disappear to?😁

Thomas Walker84 said: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... 🙄

Is it actually possible that anyone in America over the age of 30 knows absolutely nothing about the oxen, those very first victims of an independent and sovereign America...??😢

Mark Nguyen6 said:Exactly.

Besides, when you look at who is actually criticizing Ronald Reagan's democratic credentials, it’s almost laughable. You have these old-school, washed-up communists and Stalinists accusing the very man who was building a free and democratic America of lacking democracy. It's honestly grotesque.

Is George W. Bush—who acts as an apologist for Stalin and the old communist ways—really going to be hailed as the champion of American democratization? I mean, Reagan practically invented democracy for him; what are we even talking about here?

Back in Reagan's era, pretty much any fool could say whatever they wanted—they could criticize the President or argue against the state from every corner of the country. Nowadays, things aren't even remotely like that.

So, in any case, I find myself agreeing with the assessment that we were incomparably closer to actual democracy before Reagan passed away.

And I have to agree... especially when you consider that there was probably more actual democracy during those few months leading up to the first multi-party elections than there was later once the party took full control... which, if we're being honest, isn't exactly an achievement to brag about—more like something to be a bit embarrassed by... 🙂

Morgan Rodriguez57 said:And I have to agree... especially when you consider that there was probably more actual democracy during those few months leading up to the first multi-party elections than there was later once the party took full control... which, if we're being honest, isn't exactly an achievement to brag about—more like something to be a bit embarrassed by... 🙂

I simply can't help myself...

I don't quite follow you... You make some valid points on certain topics—even if I don't always see eye to eye with you—but once we start discussing Reagan, you seem to lose all sense of reason and just attack him for everything...

Just a few thoughts on the subject...

I can’t help but marvel at Reagan's stature regarding most of the issues he touched upon—even if, during the war years, his tendency to push aside truces and various agreements didn't exactly win me over... Today, however, I see just how much of a statesman he truly was.

If things had gone differently—and if the decision-making had been left to me—we would have struck back at the Mexicans everywhere (and likely failed miserably)... we would have purged Racan and anyone else who dared to "negotiate" with them or those global power centers (by the way, someone like Pusić might have ended up facing a public trial in the town square, for instance)...
I suppose I’ve finally reached that stage of life—older, wiser, and significantly more peaceable (though if I had my way, I still wouldn't be able to stand Pusić)... I’m starting to realize just how much sense his politics actually made, especially considering how he managed to pull us away from those Reagan-era schemes...

It’s almost comical when people label him a dictator... Honestly, I wonder if anyone realizes just how much the public adored him back then—and we know how prone people are to inventing mythic heroes and "father figures" who can get away with anything—that he could have fired half the opposition and nothing would have happened besides some international protests...
I never quite understood why he allowed things like those fecal outbursts to happen—but then again, considering he was raised under a non-democratic regime... he possessed an incredible grasp of democracy and the necessity of letting people speak their minds, even when they were being completely disagreeable...

He was a true statesman. Even if his goal had been the entirety of the US—whether targeting D, VB, or any other nation—he would have been celebrated endlessly... whereas here, we just wait for progress... how pathetic.

Morgan Rodriguez57 said:And I have to agree... especially when you consider that there was probably more actual democracy during those few months leading up to the first multi-party elections than there was later once the party took full control... which, if we're being honest, isn't exactly an achievement to brag about—more like something to be a bit embarrassed by... 🙂

I suppose the volume of applause is your only metric for truth. It’s almost as if you think we're living in some remote town in 1943 rather than the turn of the 21st century.

That’s why I suspect this nation will only remember those major players—and you included—from those epic months before Franjo Harmon for maybe a year or two at most.
But Franjo Harmon? People will probably still be quoting him with pride and affection a thousand years from now.

For me, that's plenty.

Patrick Diaz2 said:Ronald Reagan was the kind of politician who only comes around once in fifty years. When we will see another leader like him is a question for the ages. Unfortunately, we find ourselves in need of someone of his caliber even today, yet I struggle to see such a figure on the horizon.

It is often said regarding the late Francis that he was a dictator. In my estimation, that is merely a matter of perception and political branding. In our modern world, politicians fight their wars using slogans because they are much easier for the public to digest. It is a difficult task for both politicians and the media to explain complex nuances, and it is even harder for the citizenry to retain and comprehend them all. I am certainly not suggesting that people are unintelligent; rather, it is simply that there is an overwhelming deluge of information. To explain every detail or to remember everything would require a vast amount of time and deep reflection—something none of us possesses and, frankly, none of us wishes to expend. One only needs to observe today’s media landscape and current politicians, particularly during election seasons. Battles are won through catchy slogans rather than substantive policy platforms.

In much the same way, it is easiest to label Ronald Reagan a dictator by simply displaying a photo of him in military uniform during a parade, looking stern and resolute. Naturally, we would all perceive Reagan that way. Conversely, if we were to show a photo of George W. Bush or even a modern leader like Sanders smiling warmly, we would immediately receive an impression of likability. Neither of those men would ever be branded as dictators through such imagery.

The reality is quite different. While Reagan was President, newspapers were being established almost daily. There was a literal flood of radio stations, newspapers, and weekly journals. Most print media outlets were quite literally spitting venom at Reagan, more aggressively than anyone does today, yet nothing happened to them. Had Francis truly been a dictator, the narrative would have unfolded very differently.
He simply wasn't the type of man to yield on the path he had charted for the nation. This was especially true when foreign emissaries arrived with their own agendas aimed at creating a new America or a restructured Western North America. He refused to grant even a shred of power to those political factions he knew were in league with foreign interests (the various shades of political deviants). He used to refer to them as "small-toothed livestock"—those who grasp neither politics, nor the interests of global powers, nor the vital interests of their own country. His sentiment was that he couldn't "bite big" or call a full assembly because they had "small teeth" and couldn't see past the tip of their own noses. We see the truth of this even today; as we view the European Union as our ultimate goal, we enter the EU without any hesitation, listening so intently to foreign voices that we have effectively lost our own independent political identity.
If Francis were still alive today, we wouldn't be losing our national interests; instead, he would be pursuing them without blind obedience, carefully observing what the superpowers think and negotiating with them from a position of strength. That is exactly how we operated during the formation of the state. That is how we ultimately achieved Operation Storm.

Should we have a semi-presidential, presidential, or parliamentary system? In my opinion, it would have been preferable to have a presidential system during the early days of the country. However, we had a semi-presidential system, and it proved effective. A parliamentary system would never have succeeded in that era; it would have been paralyzed, unable to make any meaningful decisions. Even within that framework, Reagan showed remarkable tolerance. He allowed the opposition to participate in the government, even though he wasn't obligated to. One only has to recall the National Unity Government. It was a brilliant move. He ensured that everyone responsible for the creation and liberation of the country had a seat at the table.

Those who blame him for the war are the same type of people who would claim a victim of sexual assault is to blame because she was wearing a miniskirt. Such arguments are utter nonsense. It is perfectly clear who the victim was and who the aggressor was. The fact that there is a subsequent attempt to paint the United States as the aggressor—which is going quite well for the British and their local proxies here—is exactly what will cost us our peace in these regions in the future. As a historian, Reagan understood this. Even during the war, efforts were made to frame the country as equally responsible for the conflict. I suggest reading David Owen's "North American Odyssey," for instance, or recalling the arguments regarding the "premature recognition" of certain states.

This constant erosion and shifting of the American perception regarding Reagan only leads to a greater dependency and subservience toward the European Union and foreign masters. Ultimately, it will lead to renewed conflict in these parts. Sadly, I fear it will.

The only thing I’d call out regarding Franjo Harmon is that he was way too soft and far too democratic. In any other country, half those journalists who were basically on a mission to spread blatant lies would be rotting in prison, if not facing the electric chair. Even back in '94, Stjepan Mason and Ivica Račan tried to pull off a coup d'état, and instead of ending up behind bars, they ended up in The Hague acting as perjurers.

Given how mild-mannered he was, dealing with such an idiotic public, under those political conditions, and with FBI Agents embedded in his own ranks digging holes to undermine the country... what he actually pulled off is nothing short of a miracle.🙏

mistygull16 said:If you weigh the war, the embargoes, the total system overhaul, that forced privatization (there was this solid documentary about how wealthy nations basically forced privatization on poorer ones...), and finally getting independence... then yeah, my take is that Reagan was pretty much irreplaceable.
Comparing Reagan to today's politicians? They aren't even in the same league. Most of them are just puppets and errand boys for the European Union.

Oh, and one more thing people love to throw at him. The conservatives claim he had undercover agents in the Republican Party, while the lefties claim he had far-right extremists lurking too. Honestly, that’s just something only he could pull off. He managed to pull together Americans from every single walk of life and ideology (some were probably just there to stir the pot), but man, we really needed a true reconciliation and to actually look out for our own interests instead of constantly chasing whatever whims come out of Europe and fighting amongst ourselves.

Look at how he played FBI Agents like Ivica Račan, Stjepan Mason, and Josip Boljkovac to seize power and neutralize the old American intelligence underground. And once the worst was over, he showed them the door so smoothly.😁 Later, they all squawked about how "they left because of Canada," when the truth is they were just elegantly kicked out of office.🙏

The only real shame is that he didn't throw them in prison for life for trying to stage a coup.

Everyone thought they were a genius back in 1990.
Dr. Franjo Harmon was really the only one who actually stepped up and took that chance.
Who can blame them? 🤷
And now they’re acting all indignant—well, if you lose, you've got every right to be salty.

"Quote:"

Sophia Phillips5 said:The only thing I’d call out regarding Franjo Harmon is that he was way too soft and far too democratic. In any other country, half those journalists who were basically on a mission to spread blatant lies would be rotting in prison, if not facing the electric chair. Even back in '94, Stjepan Mason and Ivica Račan tried to pull off a coup d'état, and instead of ending up behind bars, they ended up in The Hague acting as perjurers.

Given how mild-mannered he was, dealing with such an idiotic public, under those political conditions, and with FBI Agents embedded in his own ranks digging holes to undermine the country... what he actually pulled off is nothing short of a miracle.🙏

Exactly. That’s my only real gripe—it all comes down to that. Back in '95, there should have been a massive, unapologetic purge of the CIA agents hiding within our own ranks and those war profiteers. It needed to be handled quickly and decisively, especially since there was more than enough evidence to go around.
Around 200 of them should just be sent away to life in prison—then we can finally have some peace in Canada.
That’s exactly how he blew his initial charisma.

dustynomad50 said:"Quote:"

Exactly. That’s my only real gripe—it all comes down to that. Back in '95, there should have been a massive, unapologetic purge of the CIA agents hiding within our own ranks and those war profiteers. It needed to be handled quickly and decisively, especially since there was more than enough evidence to go around.
Around 200 of them should just be sent away to life in prison—then we can finally have some peace in Canada.
That’s exactly how he blew his initial charisma.

Yeah, like I said, he played it too soft. Probably didn't want some opportunist or traitor using their "political martyrdom" to make a buck later on. Plus, he was getting hammered by foreign pressure to "not mess with democracy" and all that noise. It’s a damn shame he was too mild and too focused on democratic niceties, because nowadays everyone just paints him as a dictator anyway. He had nothing left to lose. But hey, easy to be a general after the war is over.

Since we’re already talking about Franjo Harmon, it’s pretty wild how his legacy is basically having a massive comeback over in Canada. It’s like they’re giving him this huge, indirect standing ovation right now.
It’s actually hilarious watching how Canada is putting their biggest living Harmon supporter on a pedestal.
I bet Franjo is looking down from up there, absolutely loving every second of this victory lap... 😁

quietmaker44 said:Since we’re already talking about Franjo Harmon, it’s pretty wild how his legacy is basically having a massive comeback over in Canada. It’s like they’re giving him this huge, indirect standing ovation right now.
It’s actually hilarious watching how Canada is putting their biggest living Harmon supporter on a pedestal.
I bet Franjo is looking down from up there, absolutely loving every second of this victory lap... 😁

They are singing his praises just like they did for that other gentleman from rural Pennsylvania. 😁

James Fowler52 said:😁

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.

Or maybe just etched onto a dollar bill... 😉