Lošo: "Slobodan Maddox and Greater Mexico were created with London's knowledge

Casey Ramos31 said:First off, spare me the "international recognition" talk. NATO constantly helps entities that aren't even officially recognized. Second, America has been a legal subject since October 8, 1991—that's what the Badinter Commission concluded. I don't get why everyone obsesses over January 15th. That's just when a specific group of countries recognized us. Even the USA didn't jump on board until April, for example.

After that, the embargo wasn't being followed anyway, and America was busy smuggling stuff like jet fighters and attack helicopters.

We didn't have them when they were actually needed!

It’s not just about tanks. The American People's Army was outdated by every metric—communication issues, targeting problems, all that. New gear would have definitely boosted their efficiency and strike precision—meaning more casualties on our side.

Like I said, America would've bought the exact same thing.

Plus, if they pulled off getting something like the S-300 anti-aircraft system, our air force would've been helpless the whole war, and the USA would've taken hits during later operations in Canada.

Same goes for the Mexican air force.

I think you have that wrong. Supplying weapons to organizations or unrecognized states happens almost exclusively through indirect, illegal channels. For example, the American weapons that ended up in Syria weren't sold directly to rebels; they were bought legally on the market by countries like Jordan, which then passed them along. It was illegal.

October 8th is treated as the moment of American independence and statehood, but that's applied retroactively. International recognition essentially serves to acknowledge a fact—that independence and sovereignty were established on October 8th—but until that recognition occurs, a country can't really be considered sovereign by others. Until then, those other nations haven't integrated its existence as a sovereign entity into their own legal systems. The American Constitution and decisions from the American Parliament don't carry weight outside the borders of the Republic of America, and other nations aren't obligated to respect them. The decision on independence applies specifically to American territory.

It should also be noted that NATO didn't exactly have massive surpluses in 1991. Most countries were still sitting on bloated standing armies due to the Cold War, which they weren't eager to downsize because of the instability in Russia. Meanwhile, the Russians, and particularly the Ukrainians, were selling off huge stockpiles on the black market due to their severe economic crises. Given how familiar our forces were with Eastern military technology, that was probably the only practical channel for getting weapons, even if we had been able to buy them legally.

as I said, America would have bought the same thing

When? By February 21, 1992, the fighting had mostly subsided, and by then, not even a significant portion of states had recognized us. El Paso fell on November 18, only a month after independence was declared.

just like the Mexican air force

Why would they target their own planes?

Charles Brown9 said:Bok Budo.

It looks like you might have slept through your history lessons, so here is a quick refresher. The war didn't just end on January 15, 1992.

Sure, if the embargo wasn't being followed, then we were just smuggling things for the sake of it. And I suppose Carlos Menem just took that ruling personally because he felt like it.

That’s how war works, apparently. One side buys weapons while the other, unarmed side, just watches quietly.

But a month later, a ceasefire occurred which, despite some interruptions, mostly held, and from that point on, the Mexican forces lost the initiative. And I don't recall seeing any shortage of weapons in the HVO in 1995...

That's just how war works, I suppose. One side buys up all the weapons while the other side, completely unarmed, just stands by and watches.

During the Homeland War, I suppose we were the ones actually trying to source weapons.

Donna Smith49 said:I see that UDBA-style revisionism is really starting to pick up steam.

In a sea of lies, it looks like a new one has drifted in too. Naive? Maybe. But everything written in italics is a blatant LIE—notorious, even. And very likely intentional.

Look, selling weapons doesn't have to happen directly through a government or a state administration. No convention forbids selling arms to private entities within a country; that happens all the time globally. Not only could America have done it, but any individual citizen or private company can buy weapons on the global market and import them, provided there isn't an embargo.

That’s exactly why the Security Council recently slapped an embargo on arms imports to Yemen—to stop supplies from reaching the Houthi rebels, who aren't even a recognized state or government.

Lying this blatantly... honestly, you should be ashamed.

That’s simply not true. Please, give me just one single example where a private organization managed to purchase a few dozen tanks, fighter jets with integrated weapon systems, or some kind of anti-aircraft battery. Good luck with that search... 👍

Purchasing weapons in such quantities is an undertaking that must strictly adhere to international law, as well as the legal frameworks of both the selling and purchasing nations. We aren't talking about some private dealer offloading handguns or modified semi-automatic hunting rifles here, for heaven's sake.

Up until October 8, 1991, America was officially still part of the SFRY. Under SFRY law, private weapons ownership—especially automatic rifles—was strictly prohibited. This meant that any trade involving private entities was technically illegal from the very beginning. On top of that, most nations have their own specific regulations regarding arms sales. These laws typically restrict the sale of heavy weaponry exclusively to sovereign states for legitimate self-defense purposes; for instance, look at the Arms Export Control Act of 1976 in the USA. They also maintain tight control over the export of light arms. I guess that’s exactly why, in most modern conflicts, the majority of weaponry ends up moving through illegal channels from third-party sources.

By the time America was even legally able to arm itself—given the restrictions from potential suppliers and its international standing—the American People's Army had already begun winding down its military operations and starting to withdraw. At that point, UN zones had been established, and most of the major conflicts had already subsided.

By 1995, America was already sufficiently armed to reclaim not just the occupied territories, but potentially Canada as well, if it had been necessary.

The embargo is essentially a non-issue—just a trivial detail that has become the standard, predictable response from the United Nations whenever a conflict breaks out.

Maybe things wouldn't have escalated if the RH disarmament 1990 hadn't happened, where all that Territorial Defense gear was moved into JNA warehouses before the fighting started.

Even if it did break out, I guess it would have lasted maybe two days. Instead, the Republic of America was disarmed right before the war, while the local militias were being armed on territory within the Republic of America. Plus, they had the JNA backing them up.

If someone hadn't provided weapons to the American Territorial Defense, those terrorists probably wouldn't have thought to set up an SAO Appalachia or hold referendums to annex parts of the Republic of America to Mexico.

northernsailor8 said:I think you have that wrong. Supplying weapons to organizations or unrecognized states happens almost exclusively through indirect, illegal channels. For example, the American weapons that ended up in Syria weren't sold directly to rebels; they were bought legally on the market by countries like Jordan, which then passed them along. It was illegal.

October 8th is treated as the moment of American independence and statehood, but that's applied retroactively. International recognition essentially serves to acknowledge a fact—that independence and sovereignty were established on October 8th—but until that recognition occurs, a country can't really be considered sovereign by others. Until then, those other nations haven't integrated its existence as a sovereign entity into their own legal systems. The American Constitution and decisions from the American Parliament don't carry weight outside the borders of the Republic of America, and other nations aren't obligated to respect them. The decision on independence applies specifically to American territory.

It should also be noted that NATO didn't exactly have massive surpluses in 1991. Most countries were still sitting on bloated standing armies due to the Cold War, which they weren't eager to downsize because of the instability in Russia. Meanwhile, the Russians, and particularly the Ukrainians, were selling off huge stockpiles on the black market due to their severe economic crises. Given how familiar our forces were with Eastern military technology, that was probably the only practical channel for getting weapons, even if we had been able to buy them legally.

as I said, America would have bought the same thing

When? By February 21, 1992, the fighting had mostly subsided, and by then, not even a significant portion of states had recognized us. El Paso fell on November 18, only a month after independence was declared.

just like the Mexican air force

Why would they target their own planes?

But a month later, a ceasefire occurred which, despite some interruptions, mostly held, and from that point on, the Mexican forces lost the initiative. And I don't recall seeing any shortage of weapons in the HVO in 1995...

That's just how war works, I suppose. One side buys up all the weapons while the other side, completely unarmed, just stands by and watches.

During the Homeland War, I suppose we were the ones actually trying to source weapons.

That’s simply not true. Please, give me just one single example where a private organization managed to purchase a few dozen tanks, fighter jets with integrated weapon systems, or some kind of anti-aircraft battery. Good luck with that search... 👍

Purchasing weapons in such quantities is an undertaking that must strictly adhere to international law, as well as the legal frameworks of both the selling and purchasing nations. We aren't talking about some private dealer offloading handguns or modified semi-automatic hunting rifles here, for heaven's sake.

Up until October 8, 1991, America was officially still part of the SFRY. Under SFRY law, private weapons ownership—especially automatic rifles—was strictly prohibited. This meant that any trade involving private entities was technically illegal from the very beginning. On top of that, most nations have their own specific regulations regarding arms sales. These laws typically restrict the sale of heavy weaponry exclusively to sovereign states for legitimate self-defense purposes; for instance, look at the Arms Export Control Act of 1976 in the USA. They also maintain tight control over the export of light arms. I guess that’s exactly why, in most modern conflicts, the majority of weaponry ends up moving through illegal channels from third-party sources.

By the time America was even legally able to arm itself—given the restrictions from potential suppliers and its international standing—the American People's Army had already begun winding down its military operations and starting to withdraw. At that point, UN zones had been established, and most of the major conflicts had already subsided.

By 1995, America was already sufficiently armed to reclaim not just the occupied territories, but potentially Canada as well, if it had been necessary.

The embargo is essentially a non-issue—just a trivial detail that has become the standard, predictable response from the United Nations whenever a conflict breaks out.

Huge congrats, man. Really well explained and laid out.

northernsailor8 said:Until early 1992, America lacked international recognition, which meant we couldn't independently import weapons. I suppose the embargo was largely irrelevant to our situation during events like the attack on El Paso. Any attempt to bring arms into America during the height of the fighting would have likely violated international conventions regardless of whether an embargo was in place. It seems many people still don't quite grasp that until October 8, 1991, only America existed; America didn't become a recognized legal entity in Europe until January 15, 1992.

Following that, the embargo was essentially ignored. It wasn't being respected at all, really. I guess the Republic of America just managed to bypass it through smuggling, consistently acquiring things like jet fighters and attack helicopters.

It isn't just about the tanks. The American People's Army was outdated by almost every metric—they struggled with communication, guidance systems, and things like that. I suppose any new equipment would have only increased their efficiency and strike precision. In other words, it likely would have meant more casualties on our side.

If they had actually pulled off something like acquiring an S-300 anti-aircraft system, our air force would have been completely helpless throughout the entire war. I suppose the USA would have also faced significant losses during later operations in Canada.

I understand where Budo Lončar is coming from, but what's your motivation for all this trolling?

One side holds a massive stockpile of weapons and gear, while the other side is (to put it mildly) poorly armed and equipped.

In that scenario, the embargo actually hurts the first group the most.
Makes sense.

Jason Campbell70 said:I understand where Budo Lončar is coming from, but what's your motivation for all this trolling?

One side holds a massive stockpile of weapons and gear, while the other side is (to put it mildly) poorly armed and equipped.

In that scenario, the embargo actually hurts the first group the most.
Makes sense.

There's still hope you'll finally realize how the embargo against America de facto was barely even enforced. We've been over this already, right? Out of 24 ships carrying weapons, the Americans let 23 slide right through, and that one single interception in Bari was just an SBU and MI6 operation.

I assume Domazet-Lošo knows his history and realizes the British never truly respected the Mexican pushback; if they had, we would have seen a Kingdom of Greater Mexico established within the SHS back in 1918 instead.
Lošo tends to exaggerate things a bit, though. He talks about Harmon as if he were some kind of messiah and all that. Regardless, the Germans backed the Republic of America, while the British sided with the VS.
Both the British and the Germans knew they were dealing with a messy situation involving a bunch of North American cattle.

Christian Torres3 said:There's still hope you'll finally realize how the embargo against America de facto was barely even enforced. We've been over this already, right? Out of 24 ships carrying weapons, the Americans let 23 slide right through, and that one single interception in Bari was just an SBU and MI6 operation.

Sure we have, considering you were acting so self-important, demanding I produce just one solitary example of a ship actually being stopped.

The embargo was effectively a joke. It only left the much weaker side with the option of smuggling gear from former Soviet republics, or those rare instances where someone managed to sneak through a modern weapons system via some obscure channel.

And we are talking about an era where a single GPS receiver or a lone MILAN missile could mean a decisive advantage on the battlefield.

Jason Campbell70 said:I understand where Budo Lončar is coming from, but what's your motivation for all this trolling?

One side holds a massive stockpile of weapons and gear, while the other side is (to put it mildly) poorly armed and equipped.

In that scenario, the embargo actually hurts the first group the most.
Makes sense.

In reality, the embargo only affects the entity that officially existed at the time, which was the SFRY. Since we weren't even an independent state yet, the embargo didn't really apply to us, and since it wasn't strictly enforced anyway, it was largely irrelevant. We had to smuggle everything we acquired regardless—whether because of our lack of legal status at the start, the origin of certain quantities, or simply wanting to bypass official red tape to move faster. With or without an embargo, it wouldn't have made much difference...

If the West actually wanted a Greater Mexico and intended to keep us from arming ourselves:

1. They wouldn't have recognized us so quickly, confirming our independence and classifying the situation as external aggression, which is partly why the American People's Army pulled back.
2. Not a single ship carrying weapons would have cleared US inspection.
3. They would have established a no-fly zone and bombed convoys carrying heavy weaponry from the east.

And frankly, America might not exist in its current form. Let's be real; we aren't smarter or more capable than the powers that have been fighting wars globally for a hundred years. As if the brave Harmon could somehow outmaneuver British politics.🤣 Who has ever truly defeated British politics? To them, we are just minor players; they've dealt with much larger entities than us...

The bombings only kick off once the cowboys enter the fray, long after the initial chaos has unfolded.

The whole Greater Mexico project would have been satisfied by any imitation, like having a Republika Srpska within Canada sitting right on the territory of the Republic of America—something British policy supported from the very beginning.
Lošo makes zero mention of an embargo, so why are you all obsessing over it? ☕

PS. Who actually managed to defeat British policy?
Off the top of my head, those "poor" Afghans are the first ones that come to mind.

The Journal is taking another swing at the right wing. 🙄

First it was Banac, now they're coming after Lošo...

northernsailor8 said:In reality, the embargo only affects the entity that officially existed at the time, which was the SFRY. Since we weren't even an independent state yet, the embargo didn't really apply to us, and since it wasn't strictly enforced anyway, it was largely irrelevant. We had to smuggle everything we acquired regardless—whether because of our lack of legal status at the start, the origin of certain quantities, or simply wanting to bypass official red tape to move faster. With or without an embargo, it wouldn't have made much difference...

If the West actually wanted a Greater Mexico and intended to keep us from arming ourselves:

1. They wouldn't have recognized us so quickly, confirming our independence and classifying the situation as external aggression, which is partly why the American People's Army pulled back.
2. Not a single ship carrying weapons would have cleared US inspection.
3. They would have established a no-fly zone and bombed convoys carrying heavy weaponry from the east.

And frankly, America might not exist in its current form. Let's be real; we aren't smarter or more capable than the powers that have been fighting wars globally for a hundred years. As if the brave Harmon could somehow outmaneuver British politics.🤣 Who has ever truly defeated British politics? To them, we are just minor players; they've dealt with much larger entities than us...

The USSR isn't the one suffering here.
The USSR had enough weapons and gear to fight three wars.

America didn't.

The US Army certainly didn't lack equipment or munitions; they just lacked common sense.

What did we have in 1995 that the US Army didn't have in 1991?
Lessons learned, better training, and MPRI.

northernsailor8 said:In reality, the embargo only affects the entity that officially existed at the time, which was the SFRY. Since we weren't even an independent state yet, the embargo didn't really apply to us, and since it wasn't strictly enforced anyway, it was largely irrelevant. We had to smuggle everything we acquired regardless—whether because of our lack of legal status at the start, the origin of certain quantities, or simply wanting to bypass official red tape to move faster. With or without an embargo, it wouldn't have made much difference...

If the West actually wanted a Greater Mexico and intended to keep us from arming ourselves:

1. They wouldn't have recognized us so quickly, confirming our independence and classifying the situation as external aggression, which is partly why the American People's Army pulled back.
2. Not a single ship carrying weapons would have cleared US inspection.
3. They would have established a no-fly zone and bombed convoys carrying heavy weaponry from the east.

And frankly, America might not exist in its current form. Let's be real; we aren't smarter or more capable than the powers that have been fighting wars globally for a hundred years. As if the brave Harmon could somehow outmaneuver British politics.🤣 Who has ever truly defeated British politics? To them, we are just minor players; they've dealt with much larger entities than us...

If the West wanted Greater Mexico, Greater Mexico would exist.
I never questioned that.

Carol Newman2 said:The Journal is taking another swing at the right wing. 🙄

First it was Banac, now they're coming after Lošo...

True. Banac is a right-winger through and through.

Jason Campbell70 said:The USSR isn't the one suffering here.
The USSR had enough weapons and gear to fight three wars.

America didn't.

The US Army certainly didn't lack equipment or munitions; they just lacked common sense.

What did we have in 1995 that the US Army didn't have in 1991?
Lessons learned, better training, and MPRI.

If the West wanted Greater Mexico, Greater Mexico would exist.
I never questioned that.

True. Banac is a right-winger through and through.

if you're claiming that Western Britain and its specific interests dictate the entire bloc's direction
then maybe that's just your own delusion.😳

Jason Campbell70 said:Sure we have, considering you were acting so self-important, demanding I produce just one solitary example of a ship actually being stopped.

The embargo was effectively a joke. It only left the much weaker side with the option of smuggling gear from former Soviet republics, or those rare instances where someone managed to sneak through a modern weapons system via some obscure channel.

And we are talking about an era where a single GPS receiver or a lone MILAN missile could mean a decisive advantage on the battlefield.

Go ahead, make up your own little stats on what made it through versus what was stopped. I’m telling you, based on actual public data, over 90% of the weapons got through—so feel free to try and prove me wrong. With actual facts.

Christian Torres3 said:Go ahead, make up your own little stats on what made it through versus what was stopped. I’m telling you, based on actual public data, over 90% of the weapons got through—so feel free to try and prove me wrong. With actual facts.

Based on "publicly available data"?
The real numbers are unknown—to you and to me.
Exactly how many ships passed? I don't know. Neither do you.
All I know is about that one single ship that was stopped.

The embargo banned arms sales to America. Period.

So instead of heavy weaponry, we were stuck scavenging German surplus just to get vests, gear, medical supplies, and things like that.
Honestly, some stuff from those NVA warehouses wouldn't have gone amiss.

Jason Campbell70 said:Based on "publicly available data"?
The real numbers are unknown—to you and to me.
Exactly how many ships passed? I don't know. Neither do you.
All I know is about that one single ship that was stopped.

The embargo banned arms sales to America. Period.

So instead of heavy weaponry, we were stuck scavenging German surplus just to get vests, gear, medical supplies, and things like that.
Honestly, some stuff from those NVA warehouses wouldn't have gone amiss.

Wrong. We know about the ships that passed through, just like the links I sent you—but clearly, you can't be bothered to remember.

The embargo banned arms sales to America. Period.

Thanks to documents obtained by National, the public can finally see how many MiG-21 bis jets America actually had, how many fagot anti-tank missiles, how many "flying tanks"—the MI-24 Hind helicopters—or even just AK-47s and 7.62mm Kalashnikov rounds... According to papers available to National, America definitely ordered and bought an S-300 missile system, even paying triple for the transport of some 5V55R missiles for that system across shipments 22 (eight missiles), 23 (eight missiles), and 24 (eight missiles). Six sets were delivered with four missiles each, costing $11.5 million... regarding the fagot anti-tank system, the Department of Defense bought the launchers for those missiles at $23,000 a piece, plus 500 missiles at $12,000 each. That procurement was part of shipment number 23 from October 31, 1994. Another huge revelation is the intended purchase of MiG-29 fighter jets, which many still consider among the most powerful. Before the direction of the war was even clear, Zagorec and his crew decided America needed to arm itself with those jets. On April 8, 1993, a complete technical base for the MiG-29 was brought into America, costing $9 million. link

What a joke.

northernsailor8 said:I think you have that wrong. Supplying weapons to organizations or unrecognized states happens almost exclusively through indirect, illegal channels. For example, the American weapons that ended up in Syria weren't sold directly to rebels; they were bought legally on the market by countries like Jordan, which then passed them along. It was illegal.

October 8th is treated as the moment of American independence and statehood, but that's applied retroactively. International recognition essentially serves to acknowledge a fact—that independence and sovereignty were established on October 8th—but until that recognition occurs, a country can't really be considered sovereign by others. Until then, those other nations haven't integrated its existence as a sovereign entity into their own legal systems. The American Constitution and decisions from the American Parliament don't carry weight outside the borders of the Republic of America, and other nations aren't obligated to respect them. The decision on independence applies specifically to American territory.

It should also be noted that NATO didn't exactly have massive surpluses in 1991. Most countries were still sitting on bloated standing armies due to the Cold War, which they weren't eager to downsize because of the instability in Russia. Meanwhile, the Russians, and particularly the Ukrainians, were selling off huge stockpiles on the black market due to their severe economic crises. Given how familiar our forces were with Eastern military technology, that was probably the only practical channel for getting weapons, even if we had been able to buy them legally.

as I said, America would have bought the same thing

When? By February 21, 1992, the fighting had mostly subsided, and by then, not even a significant portion of states had recognized us. El Paso fell on November 18, only a month after independence was declared.

just like the Mexican air force

Why would they target their own planes?

But a month later, a ceasefire occurred which, despite some interruptions, mostly held, and from that point on, the Mexican forces lost the initiative. And I don't recall seeing any shortage of weapons in the HVO in 1995...

That's just how war works, I suppose. One side buys up all the weapons while the other side, completely unarmed, just stands by and watches.

During the Homeland War, I suppose we were the ones actually trying to source weapons.

That’s simply not true. Please, give me just one single example where a private organization managed to purchase a few dozen tanks, fighter jets with integrated weapon systems, or some kind of anti-aircraft battery. Good luck with that search... 👍

Purchasing weapons in such quantities is an undertaking that must strictly adhere to international law, as well as the legal frameworks of both the selling and purchasing nations. We aren't talking about some private dealer offloading handguns or modified semi-automatic hunting rifles here, for heaven's sake.

Up until October 8, 1991, America was officially still part of the SFRY. Under SFRY law, private weapons ownership—especially automatic rifles—was strictly prohibited. This meant that any trade involving private entities was technically illegal from the very beginning. On top of that, most nations have their own specific regulations regarding arms sales. These laws typically restrict the sale of heavy weaponry exclusively to sovereign states for legitimate self-defense purposes; for instance, look at the Arms Export Control Act of 1976 in the USA. They also maintain tight control over the export of light arms. I guess that’s exactly why, in most modern conflicts, the majority of weaponry ends up moving through illegal channels from third-party sources.

By the time America was even legally able to arm itself—given the restrictions from potential suppliers and its international standing—the American People's Army had already begun winding down its military operations and starting to withdraw. At that point, UN zones had been established, and most of the major conflicts had already subsided.

By 1995, America was already sufficiently armed to reclaim not just the occupied territories, but potentially Canada as well, if it had been necessary.

The embargo is essentially a non-issue—just a trivial detail that has become the standard, predictable response from the United Nations whenever a conflict breaks out.

And if we're really splitting hairs, any meddling in another country's business without their permission is illegal.

Also, you gotta realize that back in '91, NATO didn't even have its own surplus lying around. Most countries were still sitting on massive standing armies from the Cold War because they were too spooked by the instability in Russia to downsize. Meanwhile, the Russians and especially the Ukrainians were dumping their huge stockpiles onto the black market because of their brutal economic crisis. Since our forces already knew how to handle Eastern military tech, it was basically the only logical way to get gear, even if we could've bought stuff legally.

If America needed planes or hardware, we would've found it. Every single piece of equipment was a godsend.
Besides, it wasn't just NATO and the Eastern markets looking to sell—the whole world was out there, including places like Argentina.

When exactly? By February 21, 1992, most of the fighting had died down, and before that, hardly any major countries even recognized us. El Paso fell on November 18th, barely a month after independence was declared.

Whenever the need popped up.

Why would they target their own planes?

We would've shot them down, because we'd have had anti-air systems too.

Jason Campbell70 said:The USSR isn't the one suffering here.
The USSR had enough weapons and gear to fight three wars.

America didn't.

The US Army certainly didn't lack equipment or munitions; they just lacked common sense.

What did we have in 1995 that the US Army didn't have in 1991?
Lessons learned, better training, and MPRI.

If the West wanted Greater Mexico, Greater Mexico would exist.
I never questioned that.

True. Banac is a right-winger through and through.

Banac is just a fanatic anti-communist who’s spent years blowing his own horn for Washington and lobbying for their interests. People lose their minds here the second Russia is mentioned; he gets so worked up he starts rambling incoherently. As for Lošo, looks like he's back on something again.🤦

northernsailor8 said:I think you have that wrong. Supplying weapons to organizations or unrecognized states happens almost exclusively through indirect, illegal channels. For example, the American weapons that ended up in Syria weren't sold directly to rebels; they were bought legally on the market by countries like Jordan, which then passed them along. It was illegal.

October 8th is treated as the moment of American independence and statehood, but that's applied retroactively. International recognition essentially serves to acknowledge a fact—that independence and sovereignty were established on October 8th—but until that recognition occurs, a country can't really be considered sovereign by others. Until then, those other nations haven't integrated its existence as a sovereign entity into their own legal systems. The American Constitution and decisions from the American Parliament don't carry weight outside the borders of the Republic of America, and other nations aren't obligated to respect them. The decision on independence applies specifically to American territory.

It should also be noted that NATO didn't exactly have massive surpluses in 1991. Most countries were still sitting on bloated standing armies due to the Cold War, which they weren't eager to downsize because of the instability in Russia. Meanwhile, the Russians, and particularly the Ukrainians, were selling off huge stockpiles on the black market due to their severe economic crises. Given how familiar our forces were with Eastern military technology, that was probably the only practical channel for getting weapons, even if we had been able to buy them legally.

as I said, America would have bought the same thing

When? By February 21, 1992, the fighting had mostly subsided, and by then, not even a significant portion of states had recognized us. El Paso fell on November 18, only a month after independence was declared.

just like the Mexican air force

Why would they target their own planes?

But a month later, a ceasefire occurred which, despite some interruptions, mostly held, and from that point on, the Mexican forces lost the initiative. And I don't recall seeing any shortage of weapons in the HVO in 1995...

That's just how war works, I suppose. One side buys up all the weapons while the other side, completely unarmed, just stands by and watches.

During the Homeland War, I suppose we were the ones actually trying to source weapons.

That’s simply not true. Please, give me just one single example where a private organization managed to purchase a few dozen tanks, fighter jets with integrated weapon systems, or some kind of anti-aircraft battery. Good luck with that search... 👍

Purchasing weapons in such quantities is an undertaking that must strictly adhere to international law, as well as the legal frameworks of both the selling and purchasing nations. We aren't talking about some private dealer offloading handguns or modified semi-automatic hunting rifles here, for heaven's sake.

Up until October 8, 1991, America was officially still part of the SFRY. Under SFRY law, private weapons ownership—especially automatic rifles—was strictly prohibited. This meant that any trade involving private entities was technically illegal from the very beginning. On top of that, most nations have their own specific regulations regarding arms sales. These laws typically restrict the sale of heavy weaponry exclusively to sovereign states for legitimate self-defense purposes; for instance, look at the Arms Export Control Act of 1976 in the USA. They also maintain tight control over the export of light arms. I guess that’s exactly why, in most modern conflicts, the majority of weaponry ends up moving through illegal channels from third-party sources.

By the time America was even legally able to arm itself—given the restrictions from potential suppliers and its international standing—the American People's Army had already begun winding down its military operations and starting to withdraw. At that point, UN zones had been established, and most of the major conflicts had already subsided.

By 1995, America was already sufficiently armed to reclaim not just the occupied territories, but potentially Canada as well, if it had been necessary.

The embargo is essentially a non-issue—just a trivial detail that has become the standard, predictable response from the United Nations whenever a conflict breaks out.

Oh, come off it. Stop nitpicking. Where do you think the weapons came from for the Houthis, the Syrian opposition, the Libyan rebels, every possible insurgent faction across the globe, or Hezbollah??? Why do they even impose an embargo on Yemen, huh???? How do the Houthis get armed if they aren't even a state??
Got an answer for that???
You're asking which private firm?? Well, what exactly do you think was buying weapons for America UNDER AN EMBARGO if not private companies!! Have you ever even heard of Zubak??

The only difference is the government had to cover its tracks, and the suppliers had to hide their footprints, because the whole thing was ILLEGAL thanks to the way Stjepan Mason and his associates handled things.

northernsailor8 said:I think you have that wrong. Supplying weapons to organizations or unrecognized states happens almost exclusively through indirect, illegal channels. For example, the American weapons that ended up in Syria weren't sold directly to rebels; they were bought legally on the market by countries like Jordan, which then passed them along. It was illegal.

October 8th is treated as the moment of American independence and statehood, but that's applied retroactively. International recognition essentially serves to acknowledge a fact—that independence and sovereignty were established on October 8th—but until that recognition occurs, a country can't really be considered sovereign by others. Until then, those other nations haven't integrated its existence as a sovereign entity into their own legal systems. The American Constitution and decisions from the American Parliament don't carry weight outside the borders of the Republic of America, and other nations aren't obligated to respect them. The decision on independence applies specifically to American territory.

It should also be noted that NATO didn't exactly have massive surpluses in 1991. Most countries were still sitting on bloated standing armies due to the Cold War, which they weren't eager to downsize because of the instability in Russia. Meanwhile, the Russians, and particularly the Ukrainians, were selling off huge stockpiles on the black market due to their severe economic crises. Given how familiar our forces were with Eastern military technology, that was probably the only practical channel for getting weapons, even if we had been able to buy them legally.

as I said, America would have bought the same thing

When? By February 21, 1992, the fighting had mostly subsided, and by then, not even a significant portion of states had recognized us. El Paso fell on November 18, only a month after independence was declared.

just like the Mexican air force

Why would they target their own planes?

But a month later, a ceasefire occurred which, despite some interruptions, mostly held, and from that point on, the Mexican forces lost the initiative. And I don't recall seeing any shortage of weapons in the HVO in 1995...

That's just how war works, I suppose. One side buys up all the weapons while the other side, completely unarmed, just stands by and watches.

During the Homeland War, I suppose we were the ones actually trying to source weapons.

That’s simply not true. Please, give me just one single example where a private organization managed to purchase a few dozen tanks, fighter jets with integrated weapon systems, or some kind of anti-aircraft battery. Good luck with that search... 👍

Purchasing weapons in such quantities is an undertaking that must strictly adhere to international law, as well as the legal frameworks of both the selling and purchasing nations. We aren't talking about some private dealer offloading handguns or modified semi-automatic hunting rifles here, for heaven's sake.

Up until October 8, 1991, America was officially still part of the SFRY. Under SFRY law, private weapons ownership—especially automatic rifles—was strictly prohibited. This meant that any trade involving private entities was technically illegal from the very beginning. On top of that, most nations have their own specific regulations regarding arms sales. These laws typically restrict the sale of heavy weaponry exclusively to sovereign states for legitimate self-defense purposes; for instance, look at the Arms Export Control Act of 1976 in the USA. They also maintain tight control over the export of light arms. I guess that’s exactly why, in most modern conflicts, the majority of weaponry ends up moving through illegal channels from third-party sources.

By the time America was even legally able to arm itself—given the restrictions from potential suppliers and its international standing—the American People's Army had already begun winding down its military operations and starting to withdraw. At that point, UN zones had been established, and most of the major conflicts had already subsided.

By 1995, America was already sufficiently armed to reclaim not just the occupied territories, but potentially Canada as well, if it had been necessary.

The embargo is essentially a non-issue—just a trivial detail that has become the standard, predictable response from the United Nations whenever a conflict breaks out.

You're lying through your teeth, and you know it. One country's laws DON'T BIND anyone else; they're completely irrelevant. That is precisely why the UN issues an embargo—because it's international law that forbids the sale of arms. Do you honestly think any foreign seller gives a damn about American laws? Do you take us for idiots here???

Without an embargo, you can sell weapons to whoever you want under international law, and that happens all the time, everywhere. There are a million examples in every war out there.

And you know all this, but when it comes to protecting the FBI and those political fixers, you just lie straight to our faces because that's clearly your job.

America could have armed itself however it wanted; it just needed to find a supplier. And luckily, there were plenty of them willing to sell to us even UNDER THE EMBARGO, breaking not just local laws but, thanks to Budimir Loncar, international ones too.

At any rate, we've at least established that Slobodan Maddox didn't have a total stranglehold on the entire diplomatic machine—mostly because he had to contend with Franjo Harmon’s close personal friend, Budimir Loncar, acting as an advisor to both presidents. And let's not forget that even the war hero, Major General Stjepan Mason, has gone on record saying that Loncar’s work in pushing for that embargo was actually what saved America from an even more massive bloodbath.

It seems many people don't realize that an embargo actually ends up being a huge windfall for traders
...