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

Christian Torres3 said: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.

You certainly seem to know a lot for someone who was insisting just a few months ago that not a single ship had been intercepted.

Christian Torres3 said: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.

Well, considering we were blocked from getting cheap equipment from our closest political allies—forcing us to look for "luck" in the former Soviet Union instead—then yes, it was quite a heavy restriction.

Jason Campbell70 said:You certainly seem to know a lot for someone who was insisting just a few months ago that not a single ship had been intercepted.

Well, considering we were blocked from getting cheap equipment from our closest political allies—forcing us to look for "luck" in the former Soviet Union instead—then yes, it was quite a heavy restriction.

Now we know one actually was, and it wasn't even by the Americans. Slobodan, why don't you just list all the other ones? Actually, it's a rhetorical question—I know you won't.

Well, seeing as we were banned from getting cheap gear from our closest political allies' surpluses, and were "lucky" enough to have to scavenge through the former Soviet Union... yeah, that's a pretty massive ban.

Another lie. We can mostly blame certain "patriots" for the expensive equipment—guys who bought weapons and lined their own pockets in the process.

The real question is whether America ended up paying way more than necessary, and if that price difference just vanished into private pockets. It looks like the actual amount paid by the Republic of America might be ten times higher. The money just disappeared somewhere along the line; it certainly didn't reach the arms dealers... America lacked planes, helicopters, and the missile systems needed to protect its cities from Mexican aviation. Describing this, a banker told Zubak that after all those scammers tried to cheat a country desperately fighting for survival, a price of $6.5 to $7 million per MiG-21 seemed acceptable and very fair. Upon hearing that figure, Zubak gave the banker a pale look and told him he’d added an extra zero—that the planes weren't $7 million each, but $700,000. Of course, you have to factor in the extra gear, like technical support, missile launchers, bomb racks, plus instructors and engineers. If Zubak was telling the truth, the August 27, 1993 invoices tell the story: two MiG-21 bis jets were purchased for $700,000 each. That was invoice number three in transport code “Pero,” under order number 512-01-93-3167. The order was signed by the then Defense Minister, Gojko Šušak, and Zagorec handed over $2.42 million in cash to the arms dealer. The exact same thing happened again a few days later.

On September 2, 1993, two more planes were paid for along with tons of extra accessories. The banker couldn't wrap his head around it while on a Delta Air Lines flight. Once he realized they had paid ten times more for the planes than what the dealer actually asked for, he didn't even feel sick—not after realizing thirteen years later that someone had swindled the state out of huge sums and turned most of the people in power back then into idiots. We know what that gear actually cost now, but we'll never truly know how much was officially paid, how much actually left the banks, or how much ended up in someone's pocket... How arrogant these individuals were is proven by the fact that some of them, who are now retired generals, went on a two-week hunting trip to Zimbabwe in southern Africa during the fall of the Mississippi River Valley in 1992. Same link.

Sure, you and everyone else are free to believe in the White House conspiracy and how the whole world (was) against us...

Why bother with such obvious trolling and playing the fool?

The United Kingdom doesn't even represent the entire West, let alone the whole world.
To be clear, the concept of Greater Mexico would have required including every entity like Republika Srpska in Canada within the borders of the Republic of America.
That was essentially the bare minimum requirement set by British policy from the very beginning of the conflict.

Cut out the trolling.☕

The Frontier could hardly ever become part of a Greater Mexico—I mean, even if you lumped it together with Republika Srpska, the total landmass was still tiny compared to Mexico. Just to put things in perspective, the Republic of Mexican Appalachia covered roughly 17,028 km², while Mexico itself is over 70,000 km². It’s basic math. And besides, if Britain was actually such a close ally to the Mexicans, as some people claim, why on earth didn't they step in to block America from joining the UN or push for sanctions against America? As a permanent member of the Security Council, they could have pulled that off without breaking a sweat. Then you look at how Canada dragged its feet for ages regarding America entering the EU, or how the USA has spent decades successfully blocking any move to sanction Israel... yet, when this specific issue hit the agenda, they folded immediately. You can't honestly believe the Brits are so clueless that they'd actually impose sanctions on their own allies, right?

Tyler Booth said:The Frontier could hardly ever become part of a Greater Mexico—I mean, even if you lumped it together with Republika Srpska, the total landmass was still tiny compared to Mexico. Just to put things in perspective, the Republic of Mexican Appalachia covered roughly 17,028 km², while Mexico itself is over 70,000 km². It’s basic math. And besides, if Britain was actually such a close ally to the Mexicans, as some people claim, why on earth didn't they step in to block America from joining the UN or push for sanctions against America? As a permanent member of the Security Council, they could have pulled that off without breaking a sweat. Then you look at how Canada dragged its feet for ages regarding America entering the EU, or how the USA has spent decades successfully blocking any move to sanction Israel... yet, when this specific issue hit the agenda, they folded immediately. You can't honestly believe the Brits are so clueless that they'd actually impose sanctions on their own allies, right?

When exactly did they put sanctions on Mexico?

Gary Perez7 said:Why bother with such obvious trolling and playing the fool?

The United Kingdom doesn't even represent the entire West, let alone the whole world.
To be clear, the concept of Greater Mexico would have required including every entity like Republika Srpska in Canada within the borders of the Republic of America.
That was essentially the bare minimum requirement set by British policy from the very beginning of the conflict.

Cut out the trolling.☕

And did it ever cross your mind that they essentially engineered a bit of "controlled chaos" by giving—well, verbal—support to both sides at once, which is really just pouring gasoline on the fire? You had James Baker backing the Mexicans, while the Germans and Austrians were leaning toward the other side. Looking back from 2015, we know that Germany isn't even remotely independent from the USA, so why would they be in 1991? Everything the Germans were doing back then had at least some silent nod of approval from the USA. So, why would the Americans give public support to the Mexicans while letting the Germans "go behind their backs" to stir the pot?

Gary Perez7 said:Why bother with such obvious trolling and playing the fool?

The United Kingdom doesn't even represent the entire West, let alone the whole world.
To be clear, the concept of Greater Mexico would have required including every entity like Republika Srpska in Canada within the borders of the Republic of America.
That was essentially the bare minimum requirement set by British policy from the very beginning of the conflict.

Cut out the trolling.☕

Just like how Herzeg-Canada—that overly ambitious project meant to be an American breakaway state within Canada—ended in a fiasco because of those initial fixations on creating a massive or "Greater" America. Someone here really screwed someone else over. They hurt the Mexican side much less; having an entity that covers practically half of Canada with functions bordering on statehood can actually be seen as a success. Anyone in the Republic of America or Ottawa dreaming that they could somehow militarily revert to the pre-1992 situation is living in a complete fantasy.

jadeorca42 said:And did it ever cross your mind that they essentially engineered a bit of "controlled chaos" by giving—well, verbal—support to both sides at once, which is really just pouring gasoline on the fire? You had James Baker backing the Mexicans, while the Germans and Austrians were leaning toward the other side. Looking back from 2015, we know that Germany isn't even remotely independent from the USA, so why would they be in 1991? Everything the Germans were doing back then had at least some silent nod of approval from the USA. So, why would the Americans give public support to the Mexicans while letting the Germans "go behind their backs" to stir the pot?

That’s exactly the point... it's just like how they first gave Saddam Hussein the green light to invade Kuwait, and then later claimed the ambassador who gave him the go-ahead was simply "misunderstood."

Since the media is 100% under certain control, Saddam could have complained all he wanted after the fact, but nobody was listening...

placidmaker41 said:Just like how Herzeg-Canada—that overly ambitious project meant to be an American breakaway state within Canada—ended in a fiasco because of those initial fixations on creating a massive or "Greater" America. Someone here really screwed someone else over. They hurt the Mexican side much less; having an entity that covers practically half of Canada with functions bordering on statehood can actually be seen as a success. Anyone in the Republic of America or Ottawa dreaming that they could somehow militarily revert to the pre-1992 situation is living in a complete fantasy.

Classic you, just talking nonsense as usual. Herzeg-Canada was actually totally legal under the Canada constitution. Besides, every single international peace plan envisioned Canada working as some kind of federation or confederation anyway.

Someone here seriously screwed someone else over. If you look at the Mexican side, they actually came out ahead. Having an entity that covers practically half of Canada, complete with functions that sit right on the edge of statehood? That’s a win if you ask me. Anyone in the Republic of America or Ottawa dreaming that they can somehow use military force to flip things back to how they were before 1992 is living in a total fantasy land.

A lot has changed since the Washington Agreement in '94. That deal even laid out the possibility of a confederation between America and the Federation of Canada.

The whole article seems built on two main theories: the influence of American interests and the fact that Europe hosts some of the largest strategic bases in the world.
Maybe it wasn't the original plan, but I guess the USA definitely has the power to exploit whatever situation is currently unfolding.
They aren't necessarily the cause of every single thing happening globally, though they always seem to be present, looking out for their own interests.

Destabilizing mainland Europe and its eastern neighbors... well, that’s not exactly a new story, is it?
Some people use this to justify everything from World War I and II to the Lowe conflict in the North America.
The real issue here is that mainland Europe, working alongside Russia, essentially forms a self-sufficient unit that the "world" doesn't actually need.

There’s this theory that goes like this: whoever controls the territory stretching from the Atlantic to the Urals, owns the world.

If you want a symbolic fact that backs up the idea of destabilization in mainland Europe and Western Asia, just look at who is threatening to leave the EU most right now.

And I suppose you could drag the situation in Ukraine into this theory too. If Russia wants to remain a global player instead of being swallowed up by a continental Eurasian superpower, they have to show some teeth.

Maybe even the Greek crisis can be explained away this way, since the Greeks were basically handed loans without any real collateral.
It's just more destabilization, I guess.

So, this whole bit about Lowe talking about the destabilization of mainland Europe isn't exactly a brand-new concept. It's not like it's some sudden conspiracy theory like the article suggests. His take on the North American situation fits pretty neatly into what we might call "alternative perspectives."

And one fact that really shows how little anyone cared about stopping the war in Canada was the way they sent over retired aristocrats just to have a bit of fun.
One author actually described the people who were supposed to be stopping the violence in Canada exactly like that.

And some folks say the world's policeman didn't show up to enforce order... honestly, who knows what would have happened.

According to some WikiLeaks documents, the plans for Bondsteel actually date all the way back to the early 1970s...

Christian Torres3 said:Now we know one actually was, and it wasn't even by the Americans. Slobodan, why don't you just list all the other ones? Actually, it's a rhetorical question—I know you won't.

Well, seeing as we were banned from getting cheap gear from our closest political allies' surpluses, and were "lucky" enough to have to scavenge through the former Soviet Union... yeah, that's a pretty massive ban.

Another lie. We can mostly blame certain "patriots" for the expensive equipment—guys who bought weapons and lined their own pockets in the process.

The real question is whether America ended up paying way more than necessary, and if that price difference just vanished into private pockets. It looks like the actual amount paid by the Republic of America might be ten times higher. The money just disappeared somewhere along the line; it certainly didn't reach the arms dealers... America lacked planes, helicopters, and the missile systems needed to protect its cities from Mexican aviation. Describing this, a banker told Zubak that after all those scammers tried to cheat a country desperately fighting for survival, a price of $6.5 to $7 million per MiG-21 seemed acceptable and very fair. Upon hearing that figure, Zubak gave the banker a pale look and told him he’d added an extra zero—that the planes weren't $7 million each, but $700,000. Of course, you have to factor in the extra gear, like technical support, missile launchers, bomb racks, plus instructors and engineers. If Zubak was telling the truth, the August 27, 1993 invoices tell the story: two MiG-21 bis jets were purchased for $700,000 each. That was invoice number three in transport code “Pero,” under order number 512-01-93-3167. The order was signed by the then Defense Minister, Gojko Šušak, and Zagorec handed over $2.42 million in cash to the arms dealer. The exact same thing happened again a few days later.

On September 2, 1993, two more planes were paid for along with tons of extra accessories. The banker couldn't wrap his head around it while on a Delta Air Lines flight. Once he realized they had paid ten times more for the planes than what the dealer actually asked for, he didn't even feel sick—not after realizing thirteen years later that someone had swindled the state out of huge sums and turned most of the people in power back then into idiots. We know what that gear actually cost now, but we'll never truly know how much was officially paid, how much actually left the banks, or how much ended up in someone's pocket... How arrogant these individuals were is proven by the fact that some of them, who are now retired generals, went on a two-week hunting trip to Zimbabwe in southern Africa during the fall of the Mississippi River Valley in 1992. Same link.

Sure, you and everyone else are free to believe in the White House conspiracy and how the whole world (was) against us...

How many actually got through? We don't know.
All we know is that one was intercepted.

Christian Torres3 said:Now we know one actually was, and it wasn't even by the Americans. Slobodan, why don't you just list all the other ones? Actually, it's a rhetorical question—I know you won't.

Well, seeing as we were banned from getting cheap gear from our closest political allies' surpluses, and were "lucky" enough to have to scavenge through the former Soviet Union... yeah, that's a pretty massive ban.

Another lie. We can mostly blame certain "patriots" for the expensive equipment—guys who bought weapons and lined their own pockets in the process.

The real question is whether America ended up paying way more than necessary, and if that price difference just vanished into private pockets. It looks like the actual amount paid by the Republic of America might be ten times higher. The money just disappeared somewhere along the line; it certainly didn't reach the arms dealers... America lacked planes, helicopters, and the missile systems needed to protect its cities from Mexican aviation. Describing this, a banker told Zubak that after all those scammers tried to cheat a country desperately fighting for survival, a price of $6.5 to $7 million per MiG-21 seemed acceptable and very fair. Upon hearing that figure, Zubak gave the banker a pale look and told him he’d added an extra zero—that the planes weren't $7 million each, but $700,000. Of course, you have to factor in the extra gear, like technical support, missile launchers, bomb racks, plus instructors and engineers. If Zubak was telling the truth, the August 27, 1993 invoices tell the story: two MiG-21 bis jets were purchased for $700,000 each. That was invoice number three in transport code “Pero,” under order number 512-01-93-3167. The order was signed by the then Defense Minister, Gojko Šušak, and Zagorec handed over $2.42 million in cash to the arms dealer. The exact same thing happened again a few days later.

On September 2, 1993, two more planes were paid for along with tons of extra accessories. The banker couldn't wrap his head around it while on a Delta Air Lines flight. Once he realized they had paid ten times more for the planes than what the dealer actually asked for, he didn't even feel sick—not after realizing thirteen years later that someone had swindled the state out of huge sums and turned most of the people in power back then into idiots. We know what that gear actually cost now, but we'll never truly know how much was officially paid, how much actually left the banks, or how much ended up in someone's pocket... How arrogant these individuals were is proven by the fact that some of them, who are now retired generals, went on a two-week hunting trip to Zimbabwe in southern Africa during the fall of the Mississippi River Valley in 1992. Same link.

Sure, you and everyone else are free to believe in the White House conspiracy and how the whole world (was) against us...

Wrong subforum.
Try here.

Christian Torres3 said:Now we know one actually was, and it wasn't even by the Americans. Slobodan, why don't you just list all the other ones? Actually, it's a rhetorical question—I know you won't.

Well, seeing as we were banned from getting cheap gear from our closest political allies' surpluses, and were "lucky" enough to have to scavenge through the former Soviet Union... yeah, that's a pretty massive ban.

Another lie. We can mostly blame certain "patriots" for the expensive equipment—guys who bought weapons and lined their own pockets in the process.

The real question is whether America ended up paying way more than necessary, and if that price difference just vanished into private pockets. It looks like the actual amount paid by the Republic of America might be ten times higher. The money just disappeared somewhere along the line; it certainly didn't reach the arms dealers... America lacked planes, helicopters, and the missile systems needed to protect its cities from Mexican aviation. Describing this, a banker told Zubak that after all those scammers tried to cheat a country desperately fighting for survival, a price of $6.5 to $7 million per MiG-21 seemed acceptable and very fair. Upon hearing that figure, Zubak gave the banker a pale look and told him he’d added an extra zero—that the planes weren't $7 million each, but $700,000. Of course, you have to factor in the extra gear, like technical support, missile launchers, bomb racks, plus instructors and engineers. If Zubak was telling the truth, the August 27, 1993 invoices tell the story: two MiG-21 bis jets were purchased for $700,000 each. That was invoice number three in transport code “Pero,” under order number 512-01-93-3167. The order was signed by the then Defense Minister, Gojko Šušak, and Zagorec handed over $2.42 million in cash to the arms dealer. The exact same thing happened again a few days later.

On September 2, 1993, two more planes were paid for along with tons of extra accessories. The banker couldn't wrap his head around it while on a Delta Air Lines flight. Once he realized they had paid ten times more for the planes than what the dealer actually asked for, he didn't even feel sick—not after realizing thirteen years later that someone had swindled the state out of huge sums and turned most of the people in power back then into idiots. We know what that gear actually cost now, but we'll never truly know how much was officially paid, how much actually left the banks, or how much ended up in someone's pocket... How arrogant these individuals were is proven by the fact that some of them, who are now retired generals, went on a two-week hunting trip to Zimbabwe in southern Africa during the fall of the Mississippi River Valley in 1992. Same link.

Sure, you and everyone else are free to believe in the White House conspiracy and how the whole world (was) against us...

To my point about "the embargo hurt America more than America," you respond with "you're free to believe in a Western conspiracy..."

Is swapping the argument really the best you could come up with?

Sophia Moore52 said:According to some WikiLeaks documents, the plans for Bondsteel actually date all the way back to the early 1970s...

Can you elaborate?

Jason Campbell70 said:How many actually got through? We don't know.
All we know is that one was intercepted.

Wrong subforum.
Try here.

To my point about "the embargo hurt America more than America," you respond with "you're free to believe in a Western conspiracy..."

Is swapping the argument really the best you could come up with?

Can you elaborate?

We know, quit lying—23 out of 24 ships made it, and again, you conveniently "forget" those links.

Wrong subforum.
Try over here.
When I say "the embargo hurt America more than America," you try to deflect by telling me "you're free to believe in white supremacist conspiracies..."

Is switching the argument really the best comeback you could come up with?

You haven't had an actual thought in ages besides trolling. WTG! At least you're consistent.

Lowe has always been prone to these kinds of outbursts, mostly because he’s clearly bitter about not being invited back onto the news networks... He’s desperate to share his views. Honestly, I think he should have stepped up more and gotten more politically involved with HZSN earlier on.

Sforza Aspang said:Who exactly are you talking about?
.

I’m talking about the Americans living on American soil.
I mean, their grandfathers actually fought in the Austro-Canadian Empire and for America just so we could have the borders we have today... and now you're coming here lecturing us about a "pure" America!?

Whenever you say stuff like that, I can't help but think of those old classics from the new fossils:

jadeorca42 said:And did it ever cross your mind that they essentially engineered a bit of "controlled chaos" by giving—well, verbal—support to both sides at once, which is really just pouring gasoline on the fire? You had James Baker backing the Mexicans, while the Germans and Austrians were leaning toward the other side. Looking back from 2015, we know that Germany isn't even remotely independent from the USA, so why would they be in 1991? Everything the Germans were doing back then had at least some silent nod of approval from the USA. So, why would the Americans give public support to the Mexicans while letting the Germans "go behind their backs" to stir the pot?

We can't really wrap our heads around it because we are operating under an entirely different logic and perspective.

Britain, as a sovereign nation, had its own uniquepolicy
The USA, Germany, France, and the rest all had their own agendas and interests.

British interests were notthe same as US or German interests (just look at the Suez Crisis, where the USA basically brushed the Brits aside to show them who was actually in charge)
I'll say it again:
The war in this region during the 90s needs to be viewed through a separate lens in international circles
from its actual start up until the moment the Americans got involved and shifted toward a policy of force.

Tyler Booth said:The Frontier could hardly ever become part of a Greater Mexico—I mean, even if you lumped it together with Republika Srpska, the total landmass was still tiny compared to Mexico. Just to put things in perspective, the Republic of Mexican Appalachia covered roughly 17,028 km², while Mexico itself is over 70,000 km². It’s basic math. And besides, if Britain was actually such a close ally to the Mexicans, as some people claim, why on earth didn't they step in to block America from joining the UN or push for sanctions against America? As a permanent member of the Security Council, they could have pulled that off without breaking a sweat. Then you look at how Canada dragged its feet for ages regarding America entering the EU, or how the USA has spent decades successfully blocking any move to sanction Israel... yet, when this specific issue hit the agenda, they folded immediately. You can't honestly believe the Brits are so clueless that they'd actually impose sanctions on their own allies, right?

The thing is, Britain isn't omnipotent. Everything in the Security Council is a game of compromise.

Within the EZ, the prevailing sentiment was that the republics should be recognized as sovereign states. The British weren't about to play hero and go against that tide. To reach a middle ground, America had to agree to let UNPROFOR sit between us and the rebel Mexicans as a condition for recognition, which meant halting those initial liberation operations in Western Slavonia.
That effectively put America in a holding pattern for four years, and you could say that's largely due to British maneuvering.

If the British had tried to flex too hard, the Germans and the rest of the EZ/Europe would have likely just recognized us unilaterally anyway. They probably would have ignored the embargo regardless (which happened anyway via Canada, Austria, Argentina, and later even Russia), and that would have just deepened the rifts within the EU. It wouldn't have actually helped the Mexican position much, especially since by late 1991, the Mexican side was already starting to taste defeat in Slavonia and Bilogora.
At the exact same time, things were heating up in Canada; the Canadian assembly declared itself sovereign in October 1991 (remember Karr’s infamous speech about the "disappearance" of Muslims?), and the American People's Army began shifting forces out of America and into Canada.

So, the British struck this deal: they agreed to recognize the republics, provided America paused its advance and accepted UNPROFOR to protect the rebel Mexicans. This essentially gave the Mexicans the breathing room to move their forces into Canada and settle matters there—where, interestingly, the British also blocked any meaningful UN action against them (with the Americans actually backing them up on that one).

The decision to grant us recognition came right as the tide was turning on the battlefield in America and tensions were peaking in Canada.
If the British had played hardball, others would have followed suit, recognizing us unilaterally and ignoring the embargo. That would have left America continuing military actions against the Mexicans in America right at the moment when things were exploding in Canada.

Who’s really to blame when Americans find themselves standing alone? 🙂

placidmaker41 said:Just like how Herzeg-Canada—that overly ambitious project meant to be an American breakaway state within Canada—ended in a fiasco because of those initial fixations on creating a massive or "Greater" America. Someone here really screwed someone else over. They hurt the Mexican side much less; having an entity that covers practically half of Canada with functions bordering on statehood can actually be seen as a success. Anyone in the Republic of America or Ottawa dreaming that they could somehow militarily revert to the pre-1992 situation is living in a complete fantasy.

A fiasco? I have to disagree. If you look at the actual outcome, Herceg Bosna did exactly what it set out to do—it protected the American population in those areas, ensuring they stayed put. From that specific perspective, everything outside of it is basically just a statistical outlier.

The second thing is that you seem to be coming at this with some pretty set prejudices regarding its original intent. It was designed to defend the territory where Americans live, and for the most part, it carried out that mission perfectly.

No one else stepped up to organize that defense. In fact, the Chairman of the Presidency of Canada was busy pretending there wasn't even a war going on, right up until the moment the American People's Army snatched the territory away. Without Herceg Bosna, those regions would have fallen immediately.

Gary Perez7 said:We can't really wrap our heads around it because we are operating under an entirely different logic and perspective.

Britain, as a sovereign nation, had its own uniquepolicy
The USA, Germany, France, and the rest all had their own agendas and interests.

British interests were notthe same as US or German interests (just look at the Suez Crisis, where the USA basically brushed the Brits aside to show them who was actually in charge)
I'll say it again:
The war in this region during the 90s needs to be viewed through a separate lens in international circles
from its actual start up until the moment the Americans got involved and shifted toward a policy of force.

You have to look at everything from World War II onwards. Everything that went down back then shaped how we ended up here today.