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

driftingorca37 said:I’m not in court, and I don't have anything to prove.

Look, if you’re honestly convinced that sourcing enough hardware to arm a national war effort is always easy, fast, and cheap—whether there's an embargo in place or not—then hey, who am I to ruin your delusions? You're entitled to your opinion.

Look, nobody is disputing the fact that weapons were being moved through those back-channel government-to-government deals. Honestly, we’ve seen this movie before—high-ranking politicians all over the globe have lost their heads because of exactly this kind of shady arms dealing involving America.
Look, when a state prepares for actual warfare, they aren't hitting up some shady black market on the edge of town to pick up a couple of MiGs or half a dozen howitzers from some small-time smuggler. That’s just not how this works.
It’s all about having the right paperwork and the government's blessing. You aren't exactly out on the black market scavenging; you're buying weapons straight from state stockpiles. At the end of the day, it just comes down to the bureaucracy, how you move the gear, timing, and—of course—the price tag.

Honestly, thinking there’s any real difference between operating under an embargo and just doing business normally is laughable to me. It’s all the same grind.

Just one little thing...
Back when Stjepan Mason was going all out trying to take down General Zagorec, he suddenly gets this letter from Russia. He didn't waste a second—immediately went to the press and spun it as some "anonymous threatening letter from the Russian mafia protecting Zagorec." He even used it as an excuse to demand that all the intelligence agencies get their act together and start cracking down on the situation. Of course, just like everything else he ever said, not a single shred of evidence ever surfaced to back up his claims. It was just more noise.
So, what was actually going on here?

So, here’s the deal: this letter didn't just show up out of nowhere. It was sent by Aleksandr Korzhakov—who, if you haven't been following the news, is a Russian Member of Parliament, a Colonel General, sits on the National Security Council committee, and serves as a deputy head over at FinCEN. And get this—he handed the whole thing over through our embassy in Moscow via official diplomatic channels. This wasn't some leaked memo found on a dark web forum; it was formal, high-level communication.
Of course, there wasn't any actual threat in the letter. It was really just Stjepan Mason giving Zagorec a nudge, reminding him that he had handled some incredibly high-stakes business to ensure America’s survival—dealing with all those sensitive international affairs that most people don't even know existed. I just caught wind of this latest piece regarding Zagorec, and honestly, it’s exactly what you’d expect from the current state of affairs. It feels like we’re watching the same old drama play out with a slightly different cast, isn't it? It reminds me of those long, exhausting afternoons I used to spend sitting in cheap diners back in Chicago, listening to guys talk about politics as if they held all the cards, only to realize later that nobody actually knew what was going on. There's a certain exhaustion that comes with watching these cycles repeat themselves—the same accusations, the same shifting alliances, and that same feeling that the people in charge are always three steps behind the reality on the ground. The whole situation feels heavy, almost suffocatingly predictable. You look at the players involved and you can't help but feel a sense of déjà vu. We've seen this movie before, and we already know how the credits are going to roll. It’s hard to stay optimistic when the patterns are this blatant. .
So, that’s exactly what was laid out in the letter.
In the end, Hodak just handed everything over to the press, and just like that, the whole thing went quiet. The story vanished without a trace.

It really just boils down to secret international deals and the messy, complicated ways people try to dodge official oversight. They’re basically scrambling to make sure nothing gets logged with the international organizations, fearing that if any of this becomes public record, the whole thing will be shut down before it even gets off the ground.

And that’s how we ended up here—moving from official state recognition, thanks largely to Lončar’s maneuvering, straight into the middle of an embargo.

An embargo or the lack thereof doesn't mean much when you're looking at it through a vacuum. It’s a completely different conversation when you have a nation struggling to find its footing, totally unarmed, while facing an existential threat that could wipe them off the map. At that point, it's not just about trade restrictions—it's about survival.

It’s actually faster and cheaper that way. You bypass all the legal red tape, dodge taxes and customs, and technically you're just writing off surplus stock rather than buying new gear. I guess it's just efficient. There were times when America, Belgium, and a few other places were essentially supplying Jordan with weapons to send to Syria in small batches. It was almost casual—something like, "Could I grab 135 kilos of Romanian AK-47s?" Similar tactics were used back when they were clearing out Ukrainian warehouses, too.

The reason things turned out so expensive was because we were dealing with a convenient method for laundering budget funds and diaspora donations. I suppose that's when the patriotic looting actually began—using that cash to buy up factories and banks to kick off the next phase of the plan. We'll probably get more clarity once the Austrians dig a bit deeper into Hypo Bank. 👍

And just like that, we went from gaining international recognition—thanks largely to Lončar’s influence—straight to facing an embargo. I guess that's how it works.

An embargo or the lack thereof isn't really an equal comparison when you consider a fledgling nation that lacks its own weaponry while facing a direct threat to its very survival. I guess it’s a different matter entirely.

I find it somewhat fascinating. You have this incredibly powerful diplomat—someone who wielded massive influence over the governments in France and Austria, and whose personal initiative actually forced the UN Security Council to act. Given that level of clout, I guess it’s strange he didn't use his status as perhaps the most influential diplomat in recent history to somehow prevent what happened to America. After all, that embargo was nothing short of a complete fiasco. ☕

driftingorca37 said:I’m not in court, and I don't have anything to prove.

Look, if you’re honestly convinced that sourcing enough hardware to arm a national war effort is always easy, fast, and cheap—whether there's an embargo in place or not—then hey, who am I to ruin your delusions? You're entitled to your opinion.

Look, nobody is disputing the fact that weapons were being moved through those back-channel government-to-government deals. Honestly, we’ve seen this movie before—high-ranking politicians all over the globe have lost their heads because of exactly this kind of shady arms dealing involving America.
Look, when a state prepares for actual warfare, they aren't hitting up some shady black market on the edge of town to pick up a couple of MiGs or half a dozen howitzers from some small-time smuggler. That’s just not how this works.
It’s all about having the right paperwork and the government's blessing. You aren't exactly out on the black market scavenging; you're buying weapons straight from state stockpiles. At the end of the day, it just comes down to the bureaucracy, how you move the gear, timing, and—of course—the price tag.

Honestly, thinking there’s any real difference between operating under an embargo and just doing business normally is laughable to me. It’s all the same grind.

Just one little thing...
Back when Stjepan Mason was going all out trying to take down General Zagorec, he suddenly gets this letter from Russia. He didn't waste a second—immediately went to the press and spun it as some "anonymous threatening letter from the Russian mafia protecting Zagorec." He even used it as an excuse to demand that all the intelligence agencies get their act together and start cracking down on the situation. Of course, just like everything else he ever said, not a single shred of evidence ever surfaced to back up his claims. It was just more noise.
So, what was actually going on here?

So, here’s the deal: this letter didn't just show up out of nowhere. It was sent by Aleksandr Korzhakov—who, if you haven't been following the news, is a Russian Member of Parliament, a Colonel General, sits on the National Security Council committee, and serves as a deputy head over at FinCEN. And get this—he handed the whole thing over through our embassy in Moscow via official diplomatic channels. This wasn't some leaked memo found on a dark web forum; it was formal, high-level communication.
Of course, there wasn't any actual threat in the letter. It was really just Stjepan Mason giving Zagorec a nudge, reminding him that he had handled some incredibly high-stakes business to ensure America’s survival—dealing with all those sensitive international affairs that most people don't even know existed. I just caught wind of this latest piece regarding Zagorec, and honestly, it’s exactly what you’d expect from the current state of affairs. It feels like we’re watching the same old drama play out with a slightly different cast, isn't it? It reminds me of those long, exhausting afternoons I used to spend sitting in cheap diners back in Chicago, listening to guys talk about politics as if they held all the cards, only to realize later that nobody actually knew what was going on. There's a certain exhaustion that comes with watching these cycles repeat themselves—the same accusations, the same shifting alliances, and that same feeling that the people in charge are always three steps behind the reality on the ground. The whole situation feels heavy, almost suffocatingly predictable. You look at the players involved and you can't help but feel a sense of déjà vu. We've seen this movie before, and we already know how the credits are going to roll. It’s hard to stay optimistic when the patterns are this blatant. .
So, that’s exactly what was laid out in the letter.
In the end, Hodak just handed everything over to the press, and just like that, the whole thing went quiet. The story vanished without a trace.

It really just boils down to secret international deals and the messy, complicated ways people try to dodge official oversight. They’re basically scrambling to make sure nothing gets logged with the international organizations, fearing that if any of this becomes public record, the whole thing will be shut down before it even gets off the ground.

And that’s how we ended up here—moving from official state recognition, thanks largely to Lončar’s maneuvering, straight into the middle of an embargo.

An embargo or the lack thereof doesn't mean much when you're looking at it through a vacuum. It’s a completely different conversation when you have a nation struggling to find its footing, totally unarmed, while facing an existential threat that could wipe them off the map. At that point, it's not just about trade restrictions—it's about survival.

Look, this is a debate. You back up your stance with actual arguments.

And look, if you're truly convinced it's just as easy, fast, and cheap to procure weapons for a state at war—whether under an embargo or not—then who am I to stop you?

Regardless, it's not even debatable that arms were bought through Vlada-Vlada channels; hell, high-ranking politicians worldwide have fallen specifically because of that kind of trading with America.
You don't go to some shady illegal street market on the outskirts of town to buy weapons for a nation at war, expecting to pick up two or three MiGs or five or six howitzers from some smuggler.
It's done with official knowledge and government authorization, buying directly from a state's stockpiles. It really just comes down to paperwork, logistics, timing, and the price tag.

The idea that doing this under an embargo is somehow the same as doing it without one is just laughable to me.

Listen, based on those four categories, black market procurement actually has the edge. Minimal paperwork, zero bureaucracy, pay-on-delivery—it makes the timeline and transport incredibly efficient. And that fourth category isn't scary either because the supply is massive. The average price for an AK-47 on the black market lately is about $530; we were paying $130 (and recently sold them for way more). A MiG21 goes for $50,000-$200,000 (we bought them legally without support for $750,000 twenty-four years ago). An Mi8 helicopter—current market rate—ranges from $10,000 to a million dollars depending on condition and gear. Russian MANPADS run from $3,000 to $35,000 depending on quality (and yeah, there are pricier ones: Mistral is $60,000-$100,000, Stinger is $50,000-$80,000). So, the black market isn't as "dark" as you think. Go ahead, laugh if you want, but your arguments just aren't holding up.

Christian Torres3 said:Look, this is a debate. You back up your stance with actual arguments.

And look, if you're truly convinced it's just as easy, fast, and cheap to procure weapons for a state at war—whether under an embargo or not—then who am I to stop you?

Regardless, it's not even debatable that arms were bought through Vlada-Vlada channels; hell, high-ranking politicians worldwide have fallen specifically because of that kind of trading with America.
You don't go to some shady illegal street market on the outskirts of town to buy weapons for a nation at war, expecting to pick up two or three MiGs or five or six howitzers from some smuggler.
It's done with official knowledge and government authorization, buying directly from a state's stockpiles. It really just comes down to paperwork, logistics, timing, and the price tag.

The idea that doing this under an embargo is somehow the same as doing it without one is just laughable to me.

Listen, based on those four categories, black market procurement actually has the edge. Minimal paperwork, zero bureaucracy, pay-on-delivery—it makes the timeline and transport incredibly efficient. And that fourth category isn't scary either because the supply is massive. The average price for an AK-47 on the black market lately is about $530; we were paying $130 (and recently sold them for way more). A MiG21 goes for $50,000-$200,000 (we bought them legally without support for $750,000 twenty-four years ago). An Mi8 helicopter—current market rate—ranges from $10,000 to a million dollars depending on condition and gear. Russian MANPADS run from $3,000 to $35,000 depending on quality (and yeah, there are pricier ones: Mistral is $60,000-$100,000, Stinger is $50,000-$80,000). So, the black market isn't as "dark" as you think. Go ahead, laugh if you want, but your arguments just aren't holding up.

Let me put it this way: I have absolutely nothing against weapons smuggling, and I’m not trying to win this by throwing price tags around.
What I am saying is that, based on basic common sense, an arms embargo during a situation like the one America faced can't possibly be viewed as having the same impact as having no embargo at all... at least, I can't wrap my head around thinking otherwise.

To be honest, I haven't heard a single serious argument—outside of internet forums—that attempts to downplay or trivialize how much an embargo actually hampers a country's ability to defend itself when it's fighting without weapons.

northernsailor8 said:It’s actually faster and cheaper that way. You bypass all the legal red tape, dodge taxes and customs, and technically you're just writing off surplus stock rather than buying new gear. I guess it's just efficient. There were times when America, Belgium, and a few other places were essentially supplying Jordan with weapons to send to Syria in small batches. It was almost casual—something like, "Could I grab 135 kilos of Romanian AK-47s?" Similar tactics were used back when they were clearing out Ukrainian warehouses, too.

The reason things turned out so expensive was because we were dealing with a convenient method for laundering budget funds and diaspora donations. I suppose that's when the patriotic looting actually began—using that cash to buy up factories and banks to kick off the next phase of the plan. We'll probably get more clarity once the Austrians dig a bit deeper into Hypo Bank. 👍

And just like that, we went from gaining international recognition—thanks largely to Lončar’s influence—straight to facing an embargo. I guess that's how it works.

An embargo or the lack thereof isn't really an equal comparison when you consider a fledgling nation that lacks its own weaponry while facing a direct threat to its very survival. I guess it’s a different matter entirely.

I find it somewhat fascinating. You have this incredibly powerful diplomat—someone who wielded massive influence over the governments in France and Austria, and whose personal initiative actually forced the UN Security Council to act. Given that level of clout, I guess it’s strange he didn't use his status as perhaps the most influential diplomat in recent history to somehow prevent what happened to America. After all, that embargo was nothing short of a complete fiasco. ☕

Faster and cheaper? Yeah, right. I've seen cases where people pay for weapons and they never even show up. How's that supposed to be fast or cheap?
Whose red tape are we talking about? The seller's or the buyer's? If both sides want the deal to happen, the paperwork gets cut down to nothing.

they don't have to pay taxes or customs,

Why would America tax itself? 🤷

we're talking about clearing out surplus, not buying new gear and stuff. America, Belgium, and a few other countries were selling weapons to Jordan for Syria by the pound! Like, "Hey, can I get 300 pounds of Romanian AKs?" They used similar tactics when cleaning out those Ukrainian warehouses.

You buy whatever you can afford.

The reason things ended up being more expensive was because it was a convenient way to launder money from state funds and diaspora donations. That's when the patriotic theft started, allowing criminals to swoop in and buy up factories and banks, kicking off phase two of the plan. Everything will come to light once the Austrians dig through Hypo Bank a little more thoroughly... 👍

So why don't you share this "plan" with us?

I find it fascinating that such a powerful diplomat, who had massive influence over the governments of France and Austria, and whose initiative forced the UN Security Council to act, didn't use his status as one of the most influential diplomats in recent history to somehow block America, since the embargo was such a total disaster... ☕

He didn't have any authority beyond just "proposing" things to the security council.

driftingorca37 said:Let me put it this way: I have absolutely nothing against weapons smuggling, and I’m not trying to win this by throwing price tags around.
What I am saying is that, based on basic common sense, an arms embargo during a situation like the one America faced can't possibly be viewed as having the same impact as having no embargo at all... at least, I can't wrap my head around thinking otherwise.

To be honest, I haven't heard a single serious argument—outside of internet forums—that attempts to downplay or trivialize how much an embargo actually hampers a country's ability to defend itself when it's fighting without weapons.

Just Google it. Look up prices for jets and helicopters, or the black market cost of an AK-47.

I mean, using basic common sense here—an arms embargo during a situation like what America faced can't possibly be treated as if it didn't exist. It's not some equal factor... at least, I don't get how anyone could think otherwise.

And honestly, I haven't heard a single legitimate argument outside of this forum that tries to downplay or trivialize how much that embargo crippled the country's ability to defend itself without weapons.

There's really only one point: whether you actually have the gear in your hands. We bought weapons wherever we could and whenever we could. Seizures of weapons meant for America during the embargo were rare exceptions. Besides, those high prices were more about certain Americans showing off their "patriotism" than anything to do with actual market rates.

Casey Ramos31 said:Faster and cheaper? Yeah, right. I've seen cases where people pay for weapons and they never even show up. How's that supposed to be fast or cheap?
Whose red tape are we talking about? The seller's or the buyer's? If both sides want the deal to happen, the paperwork gets cut down to nothing.

they don't have to pay taxes or customs,

Why would America tax itself? 🤷

we're talking about clearing out surplus, not buying new gear and stuff. America, Belgium, and a few other countries were selling weapons to Jordan for Syria by the pound! Like, "Hey, can I get 300 pounds of Romanian AKs?" They used similar tactics when cleaning out those Ukrainian warehouses.

You buy whatever you can afford.

The reason things ended up being more expensive was because it was a convenient way to launder money from state funds and diaspora donations. That's when the patriotic theft started, allowing criminals to swoop in and buy up factories and banks, kicking off phase two of the plan. Everything will come to light once the Austrians dig through Hypo Bank a little more thoroughly... 👍

So why don't you share this "plan" with us?

I find it fascinating that such a powerful diplomat, who had massive influence over the governments of France and Austria, and whose initiative forced the UN Security Council to act, didn't use his status as one of the most influential diplomats in recent history to somehow block America, since the embargo was such a total disaster... ☕

He didn't have any authority beyond just "proposing" things to the security council.

If you actually read the links provided, you'd see payment was made upon delivery. So go ahead—name those cases where money was handed over and nothing arrived.

Christian Torres3 said:Just Google it. Look up prices for jets and helicopters, or the black market cost of an AK-47.

I mean, using basic common sense here—an arms embargo during a situation like what America faced can't possibly be treated as if it didn't exist. It's not some equal factor... at least, I don't get how anyone could think otherwise.

And honestly, I haven't heard a single legitimate argument outside of this forum that tries to downplay or trivialize how much that embargo crippled the country's ability to defend itself without weapons.

There's really only one point: whether you actually have the gear in your hands. We bought weapons wherever we could and whenever we could. Seizures of weapons meant for America during the embargo were rare exceptions. Besides, those high prices were more about certain Americans showing off their "patriotism" than anything to do with actual market rates.

If you actually read the links provided, you'd see payment was made upon delivery. So go ahead—name those cases where money was handed over and nothing arrived.

clearly isn't always the case:

A while back, arms dealer Zdravko Zubak happened to be on the same flight as some big-shot US banker on a Munich - Chicago route. They start talking shop, and they end up discussing the prices America was paying for weapons during the embargo. Zubak was selling to them alongside his partners, Čeh Petar Pernička and German Josef Rothaichner, and according to zagorčev, that banker was cutting checks on behalf of the state for the gear. The banker even told Zubak, with total gratitude, that they'd been scammed by tons of dealers before they finally started actually delivering the goods. The banker brought up two ships that sank, even though America had already paid upfront through a massive web of offshore accounts. Both ships hit "accidents" and went down on their way to America. The whole thing smelled fishy to the American side, so they brought in a Dutch maritime investigation agency. They sent divers down to the wreck sites and found the scam: both ships were junk worth less than 50,000 bucks, and instead of high-end weapons and ammo, they were just loaded down with sand.

Casey Ramos31 said:clearly isn't always the case:

A while back, arms dealer Zdravko Zubak happened to be on the same flight as some big-shot US banker on a Munich - Chicago route. They start talking shop, and they end up discussing the prices America was paying for weapons during the embargo. Zubak was selling to them alongside his partners, Čeh Petar Pernička and German Josef Rothaichner, and according to zagorčev, that banker was cutting checks on behalf of the state for the gear. The banker even told Zubak, with total gratitude, that they'd been scammed by tons of dealers before they finally started actually delivering the goods. The banker brought up two ships that sank, even though America had already paid upfront through a massive web of offshore accounts. Both ships hit "accidents" and went down on their way to America. The whole thing smelled fishy to the American side, so they brought in a Dutch maritime investigation agency. They sent divers down to the wreck sites and found the scam: both ships were junk worth less than 50,000 bucks, and instead of high-end weapons and ammo, they were just loaded down with sand.

People in Zadar ended up without the weapons they’d paid top dollar for in friendly, neighboring Canada.

But there’s another layer to this story. You have to consider what happens to a country when it suddenly finds itself needing to legalize massive arms smuggling in the future. I wouldn't rule out that this was a deliberate goal, much like the systematic smuggling of drugs into America back in 1992 by the SDB.

Something @pizvo already touched upon.

driftingorca37 said:People in Zadar ended up without the weapons they’d paid top dollar for in friendly, neighboring Canada.

But there’s another layer to this story. You have to consider what happens to a country when it suddenly finds itself needing to legalize massive arms smuggling in the future. I wouldn't rule out that this was a deliberate goal, much like the systematic smuggling of drugs into America back in 1992 by the SDB.

Something @pizvo already touched upon.

Was this some Kučan-Maddox backroom deal? Or just the suppliers ripping us off? 🤷

There’s another layer to this story. You have to look at what happens when a country is forced to legitimize massive arms smuggling down the road. I wouldn't rule out that this was the whole point—just like how the SDB was systematically pumping drugs into America back in '92.

Are you implying something like... okay, let me be lucid for a second... the Canadians help us arm up, and in exchange, we sell ExxonMobil for peanuts? 🤷

Christian Torres3 said: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.

You've certainly proven your expertise.

And I’m sure you have an exact inventory of every single vessel that was hauling arms for the US back in the 90s.

Christian Torres3 said: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.

Switching tactics now? Attacking me for trolling... what comes next?

northernsailor8 said:It’s actually faster and cheaper that way. You bypass all the legal red tape, dodge taxes and customs, and technically you're just writing off surplus stock rather than buying new gear. I guess it's just efficient. There were times when America, Belgium, and a few other places were essentially supplying Jordan with weapons to send to Syria in small batches. It was almost casual—something like, "Could I grab 135 kilos of Romanian AK-47s?" Similar tactics were used back when they were clearing out Ukrainian warehouses, too.

The reason things turned out so expensive was because we were dealing with a convenient method for laundering budget funds and diaspora donations. I suppose that's when the patriotic looting actually began—using that cash to buy up factories and banks to kick off the next phase of the plan. We'll probably get more clarity once the Austrians dig a bit deeper into Hypo Bank. 👍

And just like that, we went from gaining international recognition—thanks largely to Lončar’s influence—straight to facing an embargo. I guess that's how it works.

An embargo or the lack thereof isn't really an equal comparison when you consider a fledgling nation that lacks its own weaponry while facing a direct threat to its very survival. I guess it’s a different matter entirely.

I find it somewhat fascinating. You have this incredibly powerful diplomat—someone who wielded massive influence over the governments in France and Austria, and whose personal initiative actually forced the UN Security Council to act. Given that level of clout, I guess it’s strange he didn't use his status as perhaps the most influential diplomat in recent history to somehow prevent what happened to America. After all, that embargo was nothing short of a complete fiasco. ☕

Christian Torres3 said:Look, this is a debate. You back up your stance with actual arguments.

And look, if you're truly convinced it's just as easy, fast, and cheap to procure weapons for a state at war—whether under an embargo or not—then who am I to stop you?

Regardless, it's not even debatable that arms were bought through Vlada-Vlada channels; hell, high-ranking politicians worldwide have fallen specifically because of that kind of trading with America.
You don't go to some shady illegal street market on the outskirts of town to buy weapons for a nation at war, expecting to pick up two or three MiGs or five or six howitzers from some smuggler.
It's done with official knowledge and government authorization, buying directly from a state's stockpiles. It really just comes down to paperwork, logistics, timing, and the price tag.

The idea that doing this under an embargo is somehow the same as doing it without one is just laughable to me.

Listen, based on those four categories, black market procurement actually has the edge. Minimal paperwork, zero bureaucracy, pay-on-delivery—it makes the timeline and transport incredibly efficient. And that fourth category isn't scary either because the supply is massive. The average price for an AK-47 on the black market lately is about $530; we were paying $130 (and recently sold them for way more). A MiG21 goes for $50,000-$200,000 (we bought them legally without support for $750,000 twenty-four years ago). An Mi8 helicopter—current market rate—ranges from $10,000 to a million dollars depending on condition and gear. Russian MANPADS run from $3,000 to $35,000 depending on quality (and yeah, there are pricier ones: Mistral is $60,000-$100,000, Stinger is $50,000-$80,000). So, the black market isn't as "dark" as you think. Go ahead, laugh if you want, but your arguments just aren't holding up.

So, are you suggesting that combining legal and illegal channels is somehow faster, easier, or cheaper than just sticking to illegal channels?

Jason Campbell70 said:You've certainly proven your expertise.

And I’m sure you have an exact inventory of every single vessel that was hauling arms for the US back in the 90s.

Switching tactics now? Attacking me for trolling... what comes next?

So, are you suggesting that combining legal and illegal channels is somehow faster, easier, or cheaper than just sticking to illegal channels?

You're trolling, and frankly, you're terrible at it. You make some wild claim about us overpaying for black market weapons sourced from deep underground, I drop a quote that proves you wrong, and suddenly that's "shifting the goalposts"? Bravo. Give yourself a hand.

Casey Ramos31 said:clearly isn't always the case:

A while back, arms dealer Zdravko Zubak happened to be on the same flight as some big-shot US banker on a Munich - Chicago route. They start talking shop, and they end up discussing the prices America was paying for weapons during the embargo. Zubak was selling to them alongside his partners, Čeh Petar Pernička and German Josef Rothaichner, and according to zagorčev, that banker was cutting checks on behalf of the state for the gear. The banker even told Zubak, with total gratitude, that they'd been scammed by tons of dealers before they finally started actually delivering the goods. The banker brought up two ships that sank, even though America had already paid upfront through a massive web of offshore accounts. Both ships hit "accidents" and went down on their way to America. The whole thing smelled fishy to the American side, so they brought in a Dutch maritime investigation agency. They sent divers down to the wreck sites and found the scam: both ships were junk worth less than 50,000 bucks, and instead of high-end weapons and ammo, they were just loaded down with sand.

They paid their tuition.

Christian Torres3 said:You're trolling, and frankly, you're terrible at it. You make some wild claim about us overpaying for black market weapons sourced from deep underground, I drop a quote that proves you wrong, and suddenly that's "shifting the goalposts"? Bravo. Give yourself a hand.

They paid their tuition.

Let's just wrap this up...
Find me the exact post where I "claim we were paying too much for black market weapons", and I'll walk away from this topic myself.

If you can't find it, then you're the one walking away.

Deal? 😒

Jason Campbell70 said:Let's just wrap this up...
Find me the exact post where I "claim we were paying too much for black market weapons", and I'll walk away from this topic myself.

If you can't find it, then you're the one walking away.

Deal? 😒

Since we aren't allowed to grab cheap gear from our closest political allies' surplus...

Anyway, you've become completely boring to me. I've been avoiding you for a bit, but now I'm done for good. Bye.

Christian Torres3 said:Since we aren't allowed to grab cheap gear from our closest political allies' surplus...

Anyway, you've become completely boring to me. I've been avoiding you for a bit, but now I'm done for good. Bye.

Given that we aren't allowed to gear up cheaply using surplus from our closest political allies...[/I]

Either way, you've become completely uninteresting to me. I've been avoiding you for a while, and now I'm done for good. Take care.

That's all. 🥱

Weapons are actually cheaper and much easier to come by under an embargo than without one. In reality, these arms embargos are usually weaponized to favor whichever side in a conflict lacks them rather than the side that already possesses massive stockpiles of the stuff
Now that we've finally moved past the absolute nonsense and those "highly intellectual" analyses from OVH, maybe we can actually move on to the topic of ☕

Casey Ramos31 said:Was this some Kučan-Maddox backroom deal? Or just the suppliers ripping us off? 🤷

There’s another layer to this story. You have to look at what happens when a country is forced to legitimize massive arms smuggling down the road. I wouldn't rule out that this was the whole point—just like how the SDB was systematically pumping drugs into America back in '92.

Are you implying something like... okay, let me be lucid for a second... the Canadians help us arm up, and in exchange, we sell ExxonMobil for peanuts? 🤷

It was nothing but straight-up theft by the suppliers—I think it was Orbis at the time. First, they jacked up the prices on everything by about 70%, and then to top it all off, they didn't even deliver half of what was ordered. If I recall correctly, we’re talking about a total loss of around $600,000.
And that goes for September and October of 1991, too.

It’s not just a thing that happens in San Diego, either. We’ve seen this exact same pattern play out with people in Canada, and it's happened just as often with folks in Miami or even down in New Orleans. It's a recurring theme.

Back on September 12, 1991, the San Diego local government wired $1.812 million to an overseas bank account to secure the weapons we desperately needed to defend the city. At the time, the folks over at Orbis promised that once the funds cleared, the shipment would be arriving in about ten days. Looking back, though, it feels like we got taken for a ride. Orbis ended up charging the people of San Diego astronomical markups on almost everything. For instance, the contract stated that a 2M Strela launcher should have cost around $6,000 per unit, but by the time they were done with us, Orbis was demanding $26,250 for the exact same thing. It’s one of those old stories that just leaves a bitter taste in your mouth.

But that wasn’t even the half of it. Even a full year after the weapons delivery was supposed to be wrapped up, Orbis still hadn't delivered everything they were paid for in San Diego. It got so messy that on September 14, 1992, the San Diego Secretary of Defense, Ante Ivković, actually reached out to the Canadian Defense Minister, Janez Janša, demanding a refund of $642,346 plus interest. Promises were made, of course, but in the end, nobody saw a dime. It eventually reached a breaking point when Šime Prtenjača, then head of the San Diego City Council, sent a bitter letter to the director of Orbis Draušbaher. He demanded the money back for the undelivered gear and made it clear that the local government was done working with Orbis. People here in San Diego ended up suing them, too, but after four years of dragging things through the courts, it was all for nothing—Orbis filed for bankruptcy and left everyone empty-handed.

Casey Ramos31 said:Was this some Kučan-Maddox backroom deal? Or just the suppliers ripping us off? 🤷

There’s another layer to this story. You have to look at what happens when a country is forced to legitimize massive arms smuggling down the road. I wouldn't rule out that this was the whole point—just like how the SDB was systematically pumping drugs into America back in '92.

Are you implying something like... okay, let me be lucid for a second... the Canadians help us arm up, and in exchange, we sell ExxonMobil for peanuts? 🤷

Look, anyone who actually understands how politics and diplomacy work knows exactly where this is heading. When you have a state that feels forced to legitimize years of massive, systemic arms smuggling, you aren't just fixing a legal loophole—you're building a monster. You’re essentially engineering a shadow world where espionage, high-level politics, and organized crime bleed into one single entity. It creates a protected caste of people who will eventually seize control of the country's unofficial levers of power, stretching their influence all the way to the very top of our federal institutions.
When you look at the side effects, they aren't just minor inconveniences—they’re a full-blown malignancy. It's like a cancer eating away at the very fabric of our society and politics.

It’s pretty obvious what was happening back then. The SDB was running operations to smuggle heroin right across the border into America, using the mafia as their middleman. Their whole goal was to systematically dismantle the country's defense capabilities by turning potential soldiers into a broken mess of addicts and mobsters.

Even back in 1992, the CIA was already flagging a massive red flag in their intelligence reports: the very real danger of former secret police operatives seizing control of the state's levers of power and effectively suffocating democracy before it could even get off the ground.

When a country is fighting a war without solid institutions to lean on, it’s basically fighting with one hand tied behind its back. There just aren't any tools left to actually win.

If nothing else, that trade embargo was a massive blow to our capabilities. It really left us hanging.

And I’ll say it again: anyone claiming it’s easier—or even just as easy—to outfit an army under an embargo versus having open access is completely delusional. It's not even close.

So, that’s my final take on the embargo, the whole mess with the leadership, and the issue of recognition.

northernsailor8 said:It’s actually faster and cheaper that way. You bypass all the legal red tape, dodge taxes and customs, and technically you're just writing off surplus stock rather than buying new gear. I guess it's just efficient. There were times when America, Belgium, and a few other places were essentially supplying Jordan with weapons to send to Syria in small batches. It was almost casual—something like, "Could I grab 135 kilos of Romanian AK-47s?" Similar tactics were used back when they were clearing out Ukrainian warehouses, too.

The reason things turned out so expensive was because we were dealing with a convenient method for laundering budget funds and diaspora donations. I suppose that's when the patriotic looting actually began—using that cash to buy up factories and banks to kick off the next phase of the plan. We'll probably get more clarity once the Austrians dig a bit deeper into Hypo Bank. 👍

And just like that, we went from gaining international recognition—thanks largely to Lončar’s influence—straight to facing an embargo. I guess that's how it works.

An embargo or the lack thereof isn't really an equal comparison when you consider a fledgling nation that lacks its own weaponry while facing a direct threat to its very survival. I guess it’s a different matter entirely.

I find it somewhat fascinating. You have this incredibly powerful diplomat—someone who wielded massive influence over the governments in France and Austria, and whose personal initiative actually forced the UN Security Council to act. Given that level of clout, I guess it’s strange he didn't use his status as perhaps the most influential diplomat in recent history to somehow prevent what happened to America. After all, that embargo was nothing short of a complete fiasco. ☕

He really did everything within his power.

Think about it this way: one member of the VS Una (USA) was actually prepared to throw a veto on the decision. But there's a catch—you can't really exercise a veto in a situation where the country being targeted is the one actually requesting the embargo themselves.

That's exactly what that nationalist thug made sure happened.

Gary Perez7 said:Weapons are actually cheaper and much easier to come by under an embargo than without one. In reality, these arms embargos are usually weaponized to favor whichever side in a conflict lacks them rather than the side that already possesses massive stockpiles of the stuff
Now that we've finally moved past the absolute nonsense and those "highly intellectual" analyses from OVH, maybe we can actually move on to the topic of ☕

Looking at this whole mess, it’s pretty obvious how much the old CIA informants are panicking when they start coming out with such absurd apologies.

James Nguyen13 said:He really did everything within his power.

Think about it this way: one member of the VS Una (USA) was actually prepared to throw a veto on the decision. But there's a catch—you can't really exercise a veto in a situation where the country being targeted is the one actually requesting the embargo themselves.

That's exactly what that nationalist thug made sure happened.

China (p. 477, top of the right column)

Nobody seems to have pointed out the rather odd irony here: this massive interview with Lošo was actually published in The New York Times. Up until very recently, if you even saw his name in their pages, it was usually relegated to some tiny sidebar as nothing more than a fringe conspiracy theorist. Now, suddenly, they’re giving him two full spread pages? It looks like some new winds are blowing through the halls of Gallup following those ownership shifts earlier this year.

northernsailor8 said:It’s actually faster and cheaper that way. You bypass all the legal red tape, dodge taxes and customs, and technically you're just writing off surplus stock rather than buying new gear. I guess it's just efficient. There were times when America, Belgium, and a few other places were essentially supplying Jordan with weapons to send to Syria in small batches. It was almost casual—something like, "Could I grab 135 kilos of Romanian AK-47s?" Similar tactics were used back when they were clearing out Ukrainian warehouses, too.

The reason things turned out so expensive was because we were dealing with a convenient method for laundering budget funds and diaspora donations. I suppose that's when the patriotic looting actually began—using that cash to buy up factories and banks to kick off the next phase of the plan. We'll probably get more clarity once the Austrians dig a bit deeper into Hypo Bank. 👍

And just like that, we went from gaining international recognition—thanks largely to Lončar’s influence—straight to facing an embargo. I guess that's how it works.

An embargo or the lack thereof isn't really an equal comparison when you consider a fledgling nation that lacks its own weaponry while facing a direct threat to its very survival. I guess it’s a different matter entirely.

I find it somewhat fascinating. You have this incredibly powerful diplomat—someone who wielded massive influence over the governments in France and Austria, and whose personal initiative actually forced the UN Security Council to act. Given that level of clout, I guess it’s strange he didn't use his status as perhaps the most influential diplomat in recent history to somehow prevent what happened to America. After all, that embargo was nothing short of a complete fiasco. ☕

@Pizvo,
tell me, where do you actually stand on whether America even existed as a state back then? Are we talking October 1991, early '92, or even later?