Has America ever lost a war?

what is vietnam

>>79321454
Yes, against you in 1812.

they lost to food

they've never won any either, they just invade and occupy countries. they don't care about victory or loss, only how many natural resources they can rob.

>>79321466
""""'Lost"""""

>>79321517
Also this

>>79321576
Communists won. But I like you because you killed 5 million of Vietnamese subhumans.

>>79321895
<3

North Korean rice farmers are next.

>>79321454
the war for white womens wombs (1960-2017) decisive black victory

File: rw9c6j99o1jz.png (736KB, 656x776px) Image search: [Google]

736KB, 656x776px

>>79321517
>they've never won any
>they just invade and occupy countries
Are you retarded

America lost almost every war its ever fought. Exceptions are wars against Spanish speaking countries. which the US won handily.

Also, helping to not lose World Wars.

Name one other war where they actually achieved their ultimate geopolitical goals. Note this had never stopped Americans from fervently believing war is a solution for every ill in the world.

Also they won against the pirates of Tripoli back in the day, undisputed. Also they won the American Civil War!

>>79322377
>Note this had never stopped Americans from fervently believing war is a solution for every ill in the world.

>says the German

War of 1812
No fuck off getting your capital burned down by tea drinkers that were simultaneously fighting Napoleon counts as a defeat

File: 5b4fa817a8.jpg (41KB, 532x605px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 532x605px

>>79322377
>what is the Revolutionary War
>what is the War of 1812
>what are the Barbary Wars
>what is the Civil War
>what is the Korean War
>what are both Gulf Wars
>what is the first Afghan War

File: 1500148639128.jpg (48KB, 477x640px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 477x640px

>7 Years War North American theatre
Win
>US Revolution
Win
>War of 1812
Lost
>Mexican-American War
Win
>US Civil War
Win
>Spanish American War
Win
>WWI
Win
>Indian Wars
Win
>WWII
Win
>Korea
Draw
>Vietnam
Lost
>Iraq 1
Won
>Afghanistan
Who knows?
>Iraq 2
Not looking good overall

>>79322507
>Korean War
Okay this was a UN war, not just the US.
Best Korea is undefeated and producing nuclear weapons and launching ICBMs wherever and whenever they want.

Gulf war? Afghanistan? How do those places look now? Is that what you wanted? That's success?

Barbary wars, yeah I mentioned that.

>>79322559
Who wins world wars, really? WW1 the French did the heroic massacring to halt the Germans. WW2 it was the Russians.

Multinational effort and the US was a late arrival for both. If the US never intervened in the world wars, Germany would have lost, only the post war circumstances would have been worse.

The US tagged along. Like Brazil in WW2. They won WW2 by your logic.

>>79322657
>all of this goalposts moving

You asked what wars the US achieved their goals in. I gave you several examples. Don't switch up your argument now that it's failing you.

>>79321454
VIETNAM

>>79322880
I agree, but America was still on the winning side. They also did the bulk of the fighting in the Pacific theatre, and it was the British empire, not France, tgat did the heavy lifting in WWI.
Overall, America is underrated in WWI and overrated in WWII

>>79322559
One would have to try really hard to lose a civil war

Yeah we lost Vietnam for sure, but our k/d was astronomically high

>>79323336
>tfw Cromwell's autistic son fuffed it all up
We lost ours

>>79323078
Oh boy, now you'll tell me the US won the Vietnam War because it scared communism.

Oh, or the Iraq War blossomed Freedom in the middle east because it triggered the Arab Spring! Such wonderful results from many Arab Youth all crying for the same freedom you gave Iraq!

Syria, Libya and many other places are so grateful for the democracy you gave them!

>>79323336
Not really, lots of countries do, America almost did. In the end the United States of America beat the Confederate States of America.

>>79323422
>all of these strawmen
No, you exceptionally dumb ass. I'm not talking about Vietnam. That's why I never mentioned it. The Iraq War was a victory. Our goal was to remove Saddam from power, and we succeeded. How could you possibly spin that into a defeat? Ita over, Hans.

>>79321454
Vietnam
Afghanistan
Iraq
Canada

>>79323342
no it wasn't, you guys are stat padding. you are counting kills made by the south Vietnamese while simultaneously not counting their deaths in your k/d.

you fucking hack.

File: 1500148961318.jpg (23KB, 260x190px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 260x190px

>>79323568
Here are the US government's key long term goals in Iraq:

>(a) An Iraq that has defeated the terrorists and neutral

>(b) An Iraq that is peaceful, united, stable, democratic, and secure, where Iraqis have the institutions and resources they need to govern themselves justly and provide security for their country.

14 year later and I would say that has been mostly a failure. None of the executive goals for short, mid, or long, term mentioned the Saddam regime directly.

>>79323342
We didn't even declare war on vietnam it wasn't official
What made us "lose" this "war" was the birth of libtards protesting

>>79323975
oh look guys, it's the 'it's only an exhibition match' excuse. ya fucking lost, get over it. political resolve to wage a war is just as important as waging the campaign on the ground.

>>79324087
oh look guys, it's the canadian who likes to meme on americans even though he wishes he was one episode

>>79322507
>Korean war

Literally no military historian claims that was a victory.

>>79323342
>America and allies deaths:
909,834 (does not include subsequent deaths from defoliants and asbestos)
Vietcong and allies deaths:
838,114

This despite America and her allies outnumbering the Viet Cong, China, and North Koreans almost 4:1

>>79324189
good reply, really dealt with the substance of my rebuttal to you. is this the famous American bantz I've heard so much about?

>>79321454
Yes but not an existential one.

We're quite good at winning wars the matter and losing wars that don't matter geopolitically.

>>79323962
you forgot (c) prevent a competing or otherwise hostile regional power in the middle east, similar to Britain and France's Picot-Sykes that knocked Kurdistan out of the equation

If we can't secure a loyal ally, the next best thing is to ensure that the region is rubble and can't support a hostile regional power that will threaten us. This isn't even advanced geopolitics. This is the basics

>>79324298
Now who is moving the goalposts?

>>79324298

>>(c) prevent a competing or otherwise hostile regional power in the middle east

you guys even failed at that! what the fuck is ISIS?

>>79324189
Not him but why would a Canadian want to be American? My entire province was founded by people who were American and then said "nope, fuck this place."

File: Screenshot_2017-09-10-10-31-09.png (73KB, 960x540px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 960x540px

>>79324351
Nice try lol

>>79324217
>appeal to authority
Not an argument
>>79323962
>no sources
Not an argument

File: Untitled.png (78KB, 1277x803px) Image search: [Google]

78KB, 1277x803px

>>79324467
that's not samefagging retard, that's another leaf in here duh!

>>79324467
Nice try at what?

>>79324548
Lol don't be mad because you can't catch samefags, leaf
>>79324569
Nice try at catching samefags

File: 1494914462763.png (77KB, 429x410px) Image search: [Google]

77KB, 429x410px

>>79324526
>America has lost thousands of lives and spent billions, if not trillions, fighting a war for 14 years in Iraq
>needs a foriegner to provide easily searchable sources for why America is there

Grim

File: Screenshot_20170910-113949.png (466KB, 1440x2560px) Image search: [Google]

466KB, 1440x2560px

>>79324640
>American espionage

File: y5wm59p47l2y.jpg (45KB, 634x744px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 634x744px

>>79324668
Still not an argument. Provide evidence to support the claim that these were the goals to be met.

File: im-the-angriest-man-who-ever-lived-6796708.png (150KB, 500x526px) Image search: [Google]

150KB, 500x526px

>>79324709
>mfw

File: Project Capture (2).jpg (1MB, 2400x1800px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2400x1800px

>>79324738
You lose arguments like you lose wars, often and with a lot of shitposting

>>79324738

>>american edumacation.

https://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/infocus/iraq/iraq_strategy_nov2005.html

File: download.jpg (8KB, 259x194px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 259x194px

>>79324814
So in other words, you can't prove the claim?

File: 1501722089164.png (89KB, 1328x1140px) Image search: [Google]

89KB, 1328x1140px

>>79324878
Certainly you could give me a page number to look at rather than just dropping an entire book on me.

Revolutionary War: Won
War of 1812: Draw or win, depending on how you look at it
Indian Wars: Won
Mexican War: Won
Civil War: Won
Spanish-American War: Won
WWI: Won
WWII: Won
Korean War: Draw or win, depending on how you look at it
Vietnam War: Lost
Gulf War: Won
Afghanistan War: Won
Iraq War: Won

>>79324957
sorry brah, not going to coddle you like that. you asked for a source and I gave it.

>>79324984
>Civil War: Won
Also lost. Kek

>WWI: Won
>WWII: Won
>We won because we've joined the winning side at the very end.
Americans are scumbags.

>Afghanistan War: Won
What have you won there?

>>79322420
Wait, didn't you get totally waxed by the French and needed the British to bail you out back then?

>>79325090
>We won because we've joined the winning side at the very end

>enter the war December 1941
There was a whole lot of war still to be fought at that point, Pytor.

>>79324984
>American education

File: laughingbigguys.png (875KB, 968x745px) Image search: [Google]

875KB, 968x745px

>>79322507
>War of 1812
>Korean War

How many times we need to tell this. We didn't lose the vietnam war. We just left.

>>79325090
WWII is the american victory. We provided the funds. You provided dead bodies.

File: 2011-06-02-bobbyfischer01.jpg (105KB, 371x478px) Image search: [Google]

105KB, 371x478px

>>79321454
how to get myself masculine 'murican boipucci?

File: luifgXW.jpg (114KB, 1440x1365px) Image search: [Google]

114KB, 1440x1365px

>>79325044
Looks like we're done here, then.

>>79325137
>There was a whole lot of war still to be fought at that point, Pytor.
You've spent four years fighting the Japanese.

>WWII is the american victory. We provided the funds. You provided dead bodies
You didn't. You've lendleased a bunch of stuff and lost a base to a bunch of suicide bombers on Zeros.

>>79325137
>How many times we need to tell this. We didn't lose the vietnam war. We just left.
We didn't lose it militarily, but politically. The final NVA offensive in spring 1975 was a desperation move and a little air and naval support could have beaten them off. However, after Watergate the 1974 midterm elections saw Congress swept by hardline antiwar leftist Democrats. As soon as the new Congress convened the following January, they immediately voted to terminate all aid to South Vietnam. President Ford was against this, but they had a veto-proof majority.

>>79321454
more like have they ever won a war?

>>79325301
>You've spent four years fighting the Japanese

Yes, starting in December 1941. Wha...you think we were fighting them in 1938 or something?

>>79323276
>They also did the bulk of the fighting in the Pacific theatre
you are correct, but underestimating the effect of the wars in manchuria and south asia, they were just as if not more significant in japan's defeat
>it was the British empire, not France, tgat did the heavy lifting in WWI.
I couldnt say who contributed more in WW1, neither country would have won without the other

>>79322657
>>79322880
>German flag talking about winning wars
:^)

>>79323276

> it was the British empire, not France, tgat did the heavy lifting in WWI

You've been drinking from the anglo propaganda kool-aid again, haven't you?

The French did significantly more fighting in WW1 than the British. Whatever about them surrendering quickly in WW2, in WW1 they were lions.

File: 1492195168720.gif (179KB, 494x665px) Image search: [Google]

179KB, 494x665px

>we won 1812!
>we won korea!
>we won vietnam!

>>79325466
French history books like to lionize the Resistance in WWII, but they're loathe to mention that most of the Resistance fighters were communists and the bulk of the population complied with the Germans extremely willingly to the point where practically every female in Paris under 35 fucked a German soldier.

Since Charles de Gaulle was a right wing Resistance leader (as opposed to a communist), he was able to create this patriotic myth of the Resistance after the war that didn't quite jibe with reality. There's a whole lot about the German occupation of France that's actually pretty embarrassing and been subjected to revisionist history.

>>79325405
It was fear of Russia that made the Japs surrender unconditionally, but I do give America credit for tge bulk of the battles.

>>79325466
>>79325405
I have nothing but respect for the French in WWI, but looking at battles, manpower, tech, resources, etc, it was Anglos that did the most work.

File: zhukov-large-56a61bae3df78cf7728.jpg (211KB, 1688x1565px) Image search: [Google]

211KB, 1688x1565px

>>79325301
And lest we forget. :^)

"We received vast numbers of trucks, radios, shoes, and medical supplies from the Americans. Really, victory would not have been possible without [Lend-Lease]. Yet it is now made to seem as if we ourselves had all these things in abundance."

>>79325585
I don't see how you could argue that they lost the Korean War.

File: 6.jpg (30KB, 795x230px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 795x230px

>>79325198
Do American keyboards lack the Ctrl and F keys?

>>79325668
they didn't win, either
same with 1812
>>79325630
>It was fear of Russia that made the Japs surrender unconditionally, but I do give America credit for tge bulk of the battles.
it was both the nukes, the firebombings and the russian invasion. Japan got fucked in every way imaginable at the end basically

>>79325585
Name 3 people in the thread saying that we won Vietnam

>>79325724
>>79325668
>>79325585
Might want to make your samefagging less obvious there.

>>79325705
>in the longer term
By that logic, the Axis won WW1 because the Germans eventually reared after the Treaty of Versailles. We achieved our goals while the war took place. What happens afterwards is irrelevant.

>>79325724
The bombs forced a surrender, the Soviets forced an unconditional surrender

>>79325736
Chad, Dave and Tyrone

>>79323336
The US "civil war" wasn't a civil war, it was a suppressed war of independence. Literally in no other case in history is such a war referred to as a "civil war", which is a war between citizens of one country to change the government or policies of that one country, not a war of secession.

If the Confederates' aim was to replace the US government, maybe, but that wasn't the case. It was a nationalist rebellion.

The atomic bombs were just designed to scare Stalin off from any potential designs he had on Japan.

>>79325724
Well, I would argue the main goal was to prevent a successful invasion of South Korea, which they achieved. In the interim between now and the 1953 armistice North Korea has lost all of its previous allies and become a politically isolated pariah state. It's very unlikely to last out the next few decades.

>>79325783
The Germans rearmed according to treaty rules which allowed for things like German naval tonnage to match a certain percentage of British tonnage so long as they provided 3 years notice. They drilled as part of a civic work corps, all legal according to the treaty after WWI

>>79325783
I'm having the feeling you'll just disregard any and all of the objectives declared previous to the war if they weren't met, and then claim that whatever ended up happening on Iraq turns retroactively in the new set of objectives, that you conveniently achieved already.

File: hurr.png (12KB, 451x295px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 451x295px

>>79325781
Moron.

>>79325840
>ah yes we just killed hundreds of thousands of people for slight geopolitical gain
do amercians have no soul?

>>79325783
it was your commander in chief that wrote it. take it up with him. he was literally the architect of the Iraq War and it was his power to set the goals and ambitions of American strategic interests.

>american education

File: Untitled.png (9KB, 555x151px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 555x151px

>>79325781
*brrrrrappppppppp*
>>79325915
>photon
my eyes

>>79325960
>>79325915
Yeah, I can edit those in MS Paint too.

File: 1494866504142.png (70KB, 645x729px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 645x729px

>>79325998
t.

>>79325998
now this is just getting pathetic dude.

>>79325959
>Germany
>winning world wars

>enter war
>fight for years with no gain
>entire population turns against the war
>leave the place you were defending
>it gets overrun by the enemy
>"we won"

um that's not how it works sweetie xxx

>>79324217
The goal of the war was to save South Korea and this was accomplished.

>>79326253
>no sources
Not an argument

>>79326251
What war was this?

>>79326373
He sounds as if he means Vietnam, but when he says the entire population turned against the war, that couldn't be right because the antiwar movement was never more than a minority of Americans.

And nobody's claiming we "won" the war.

>>79326526
>And nobody's claiming we "won" the war
We won the military side of the war (or at least drew it since South Vietnam wasn't overrun until after we left). We lost the political side of the war because we caved to the antiwar mob and pulled out.

File: eternal anglos.gif (2MB, 500x209px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 500x209px

>>79325922

They had very good teachers.

>>79326629
There is literally nothing wrong with sacrificing millions of unrelated pawns to protect yourselves.

>>79325922
As opposed to the 1 million+ people who would have died invading Japan?

>>79326697
but that's not how that anon justified the bombings

he justified them as 'oh they just showed the soviets we mean business'

>>79322507
>the US won the civil war

woah

>>79321517
""""""""""""""rob""""""""""''

File: 1503960790514.png (41KB, 233x248px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 233x248px

>>79321454
I think everyone lost in the Civil War

The War of 1812 is more debatable, it was considered a victory by American history texts through the 19th century, since then it's generally considered a draw.

They are losing one against us right now.

We are taking their territories easily.

>>79326983
>I think everyone lost in the Civil War
Everyone who wasn't the United States of America

>non-meme answer
War is hell, and is always a vile time. It should always be avoided, and I wish it hadn't happened.

Well the good Amercans lost the War of Northern Aggression.

File: 1833.jpg (20KB, 351x351px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 351x351px

>>79326875
>tfw we lost our civil war

>>79327114
>can't even control the territory he has
>most of it is overrun by cartels
Uh...

>>79327219
>War is hell, and is always a vile time. It should always be avoided, and I wish it hadn't happened
Strange as it may sound, nuclear weapons were the best gift to world peace there is, since they've ensured that wars of the kind fought in the 20th century will never happen again.

>>79327255
As if your country is any better with SJWs, niggers and drumpfcucks chimping against each other right now...

File: 1411247160570.jpg (8KB, 300x300px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 300x300px

>>79327114
>go to another country to work for slave wages and get treated like a slave
>somehow below even blacks
>legislation regarding you basically boils down to whether we legally consider you people or not (the answer is usually some form of no)
>t-t-take that gringo!

I wonder if slaves on the plantations said similar things to each other, e.g. "Without us slaves, dis here plantation economy wouldn't never work good! We run dis shit!" before getting whipped for not picking enough cotton or learning to read.

Really flexes by butthole

>>79327392
>>79327255
Pay no heed to the Aztlan idiot.

>the war on drugs
>the war on terrorism

Just to name 2.

>>79327392
alright, it seems you don't have anything to worry about then

>>79327471
>>79327392
Redpill time:

It would be impossible for Mexico to govern the Southwest under its present population levels because [spoiler]cut off from the vast grain belt of the Midwest, there's no way to feed those states[/spoiler]

The Southwest is mostly desert and the only crops grown there are weed and produce. Very little grain is grown there, and while Mexico itself has a grain belt, it is not conceivably able to feed the 76 million people in CA, TX, AZ, NM, and NV.

So any time you see posters like >>79327114 fantasizing about la reconquista and Aztlan bullshit, just remember this fact. :^)

>>79327058
but the result was status quo ante bellum, after the USA was the aggressor
surely that is a draw at best

File: first mcdonalds in vietnam 02112014.jpg (965KB, 2189x1459px) Image search: [Google]

965KB, 2189x1459px

>>79321466
>>79321895
>>79322559
>>79323101
>>79323342
>>79323629
>>79324984
>>79325585
>vietnam

Yet eventually they won.

File: 1390458187514.jpg (8KB, 150x150px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 150x150px

>>79327302
Pax Nuclearis just means that we won't have a war like World War II. But humans always find a way to wag their dicks at each other. It's built in, ultimately boils down to ape stuff.

I was just reading how information warfare is probably going to replace nukes, in a way. Nukes don't matter when you can get a puppet, or at least a leader sympathetic to your aims, elected. For instance, no need to level or invade China when we can control the information to such an extent that the people elect a fawning, sycophantic premier who voluntarily decimates Chinese influence in the name of isolationism or "creating jobs." Control of information is suddenly more vital than control of the skies or control of the seas or control of the ICBM launch codes.

But yeah, we're probably never going to have a big war like World War II. And no matter what happens, that's something we can be thankful for.

File: 1497312915636.jpg (41KB, 500x513px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 500x513px

>>79327791
its beautiful

>>79327708
As I said, the war is generally considered a draw today. Back in the 19th century, it was seen as a win probably because of anti-British sentiment in the US at the time. By the 20th century, Anglo-US relations had improved considerably.

>>79327632
You can easily tell we are winning when /pol/fags have to post this.

>>79327058
>a mugger tries to steal my wallet
>we fight and I largely beat the shit out of him though he gets a couple punches in
>he didn't get my wallet though
>later he tells everyone he won this attempted mugging or at worst it was a draw since I also didn't take his wallet even though I never tried to in the first place

>>79327829
North Korea will be brought down in the end not by war, but by the fact that it is increasingly hard to keep the people isolated from the outside world with modern technology.

>>79328003
>can't actually refute it
>has to cry about his /pol/ boogeyman
:^)

>>79327854

I can feel the lust for oppression and conquest reflecting in your beady little anglo eyes through the screen of my monitor.

>>79321454
Never.

>>79328068
>p-p-pls refute the bullshit I just made so I can feel better

>>79328082
Although you consider us the enemy, these conclusions are flawed. We are your salvation.
We bring you peace
a peace built upon OUR social framework imposed upon your nation
a new world order in which your prosperity and security are assured by the Anglo.
We will protect you from the hazards of this hostile universe, from dangers so hideous
your simple minds cannot imagine their dark scope.
Today, we are the enemy. In time, this will change.
Soon, you will come to understand the boon of slavery we force upon you
and then, you will revere and even love us for this gift.

>>79327471
>>79327632

I'm >>79327392
I'm a liberal. Support immigration provided it's legal and we take care of own first.

But even if you Spanish speakers DO get a majority, and that majority somehow finds a way to act as a singular, united entity rather than some kind of Balkanized political entity, it's not going to change a whole lot.

For one, the main language is still going to be English, because A) most immigrants past 3rd generation are so assimilated that they don't learn the language (see fears of German language influence from the turn of the century that never happened), and B) English is already the global lingua franca.

Also, all of the wealth will still be concentrated with the whites. It'll be kind of like South Africa but less racist, where the small white minority is better off than the black majority.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_Brahmin
These people came over the earliest, some on the Mayflower, and they're STILL better off than most families to this day.

I'm not worrying, and /pol/tards shouldn't worry either. The scary brown people aren't going to take over. Things like geography and socioeconomic situation usually matter more than race. You don't see the descendants of Irish or German or Italian immigrants voting on the same lines as their great-grandparents, do you? That's because they assimilated, and voting on ethnicity matters way less than say, property taxes or education spending. Jorge in New York City will vote differently that Pedro in Kansas City, because race < $$$.

>>79328164
shut the fuck up

we need to keep russia as a scape-goat

>>79328327
And Russia needs us as a scapegoat.

We need each other <3

>>79328164
>OUR social framework

We have already become a part of your neo-colonial empire when our dumb and greedy leaders 30 years ago decided to disband the Soviet Union.

>a new world order in which your prosperity and security are assured by the Anglo.

In your "new world order" we are going to have neither prosperity nor security.

>you will revere and even love us for this gift

Only if you send us all to the room 101 and make us love you by force.

>>79328327
>>79328402

What are you going to when Russia collapse? It's a matter of 3-5 years within the current condition of our economy.

File: mexico_ag_1978.jpg (115KB, 1043x756px) Image search: [Google]

115KB, 1043x756px

>>79328125
Alright, I'm giving you a chance. If you had control over the Southwest, how would you feed 76 million people (slightly over half Mexico's current population). Your own agricultural capacity couldn't manage it.

>>79328281
Actually the real thing is more that CHIs don't identify as Mexicans and Mexicans don't identify with CHIs, they rather loathe each other actually. You can see it on this very website in /lat/ threads that CHIs are the butt of jokes.

>>79329151
>We have already become a part of your neo-colonial empire when our dumb and greedy leaders 30 years ago decided to disband the Soviet Union.
But Ivan-kun, Russia was always utterly reliant on Western countries for technology and investment ever since Peter the Great. You think Stalin simply waved his hand and factories sprung from the Earth? No, it was Western cunts that built most of that, for example Henry Ford built a number of automobile plants in the USSR.

>>79321454
America is a country that always kicks the ass of the country they are fighting, but somehow still lose the war.

>>79328281
The rate of immigration is actually declining and also Mexico's birthrates are falling. They soon won't have any surplus population to send.

If anything, Europe has more to worry about from Muslim immigration for a wide variety of reasons both cultural, religious, and historical. The Islamic world and Europe have had a bitter, bitter rivalry for 1400 years.

>>79329154
We get another "bad" deal like NAFTA with another country.

:^)

>>79329154
This is a significant point. Mexico never had any realistic chance of controlling and populating the remote territories north of the Rio Grande that were inherited from New Spain. The Louisiana Purchase is what gave the US the economic base for expansion to the Pacific. Mexico did not have such an economic base. Inevitably, they would have lost California, New Mexico, and Texas, if not to the US, probably to Britain or the territories would have seceded and become independent states.

>>79329622
>>79329154
t.samefag

>>79329154
How do you think a country like the UK does it with 65 million people and a landmass the size of your local Walmart parking lot?

>>79329789
Britain isn't 70% desert and is _considerably_ smaller.

>>79321466
>>79321517
Won every battle. Lost the war.

American wars usually have very idealistic goals, that are hard to measure, and results are not going to be obvious in 1 or 2 years.

Wars in the past, where simply about fucking shit up and taking a piece of land. That's easy. The US can do that easily.

But country building is hard, which is why people consider US wars to be failures.

But in reality, the US rarely losses any military confrontations.

File: 9090887.png (45KB, 1527x491px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 1527x491px

>>79329688
No.

File: vietnam and capitalism.png (283KB, 524x1472px) Image search: [Google]

283KB, 524x1472px

>>79327791
We won the Vietnam war!

>>79329883

Oh right, we all now remember UK's beautiful corn fields that sustained the entire country for decades...

You're a fucking retard, kid.

>>79329985
They don't grow corn in Britain, it's mostly wheat and oats.

File: 1503025345767.jpg (6KB, 225x225px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 225x225px

>>79321454
>mfw I told an american they lost Vitenam and he actually started going "uh, actually, not really, it's all about..."
I don't even give a shit, but the reaction was hilarious.

>>79329154
Most of that area is very bad and inefficient/difficult to farm.

>>79322559
>war of 1812
>lost
So, if the US wins every military confrontation but fails to get the war objectives, than that is a lost no?

So, How is 1812 a lose for the US?

We did lose many military confrontations with red coats, and won others.

But the objectives of the war exceeded expectation.

>Impressment stopped.
>British abandoned the midwest, and stopped supporting native tribes in the west.
>The US now was free to expand to the french colonies without Brit intervention.
>tecumseh's confederacy collapses

File: a16f2.jpg (298KB, 1255x940px) Image search: [Google]

298KB, 1255x940px

>>79330040
So you're moving the goalpost now?

Good to know wheat and oats are mostly produced in the north of Mexico.

>>79322880
>late arrival
The US may have been late for WW1. But not late for WW2.
The US entered the war when it was supposed to.
There was not reason for the US to enter the war previous to that.

>The US tagged along. Like Brazil in WW2. They won WW2 by your logic.
Really? So, the complete destruction of the Japanese empire, the expulsion of the Germans from North Africa, Italy, and France is nothing?

>>79330161
>murrican history books

>>79321454
>1812 we stopped the invasion and razed the white house
>vietnam,failed in stopping communism taking over
>now,mexico is taking over the usa and will soon be demanding you hand back the states with a high perentage of mexicans

Nope

>>79330227
No, I said if you look at >>79329154, Mexico's grain belt is mostly in the center to center south of the country (the rest is pretty much jungle and desert) and the other guy pointed out that it's also very inefficient to farm because it's a mountain plateau.

Therefore Mexico could not possibly sustain a significant population in an area the size of the Southwestern US, since it's mostly desert only useful for meme crops. :^)

File: ProdEstados2015.png (98KB, 1075x805px) Image search: [Google]

98KB, 1075x805px

>>79330040

To further complement...

WTF what are all these NORTHERN states doing in this graph?

A dumbass ameriturd just told me that agriculture is not possible in the north of Mexico and that a country like UK can sustain on wheat and oats.

HOW IS THIS POSSIBLE?

Tell me more about my country with your made up shit, retard.

>>79330161
Impressment and trade rights weren't real goals, they were propaganda used to drum up support in New England where the war was very unpopular. Every country does this, but only Americans continue to believe war propaganda for centuries to come.
Preventing a Northwest Indian nation was a real goal but it was ancillary. The main goal was the annexation of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Upper Canada, Rupert's Land, and Lower Canada. This primary goal failed.

>>79330409
>let me tell you more about your country with my dumbass opinion

>>79330353
It's the truth though.
While the treaty of ghent didn't explicitly acknowledge US maritime rights, The Brits did stop impressment, and the destruction of the tecumseh's confederacy allowed the US to move west.

The Brits didn't anything. Not one acre of land. No money, nothing. The Brits paid like 1Million dollars at the time for reparations in the freed slaves that they had taken.

>>79330464
>let me tell you more about your country
You've been doing this the entire thread. You can dish it out but you sure can't take it.

>>79330518
Do you even understand what you read?

I don't remember talking about the US in any of my posts, retard.

I've been talking about Mexico the entire time, you're way beyond a retard but then again you're an ameriturd so this is expected.

>muriturds are so fucking dumb that they can't even understand their language

top kek

>>79330433
>they were propaganda used to drum up support in New England where the war was very unpopular
Ironically, Massachusetts contributed more volunteers to the war effort than Virginia.

>>79330504
Americans are usually solid with history but man you guys are almost Japan tier about internal stuff.

>>79330433
>Canadian education
Right. That's the propaganda that have been taught to you. To make you seem as the victim.

The Brits were violating US maritime rights. From seizure of cargo and ships, impressment, and support of tribes in the west, that was preventing US expansion. The US had by result of the US revolution, right to expand all the way east of the Mississippi river. The Brits were supporting natives that were slowing down this expansion.

There is nothing that points to the US desires to annex Canada. I think there was like only one senator who mentioned it, but that was never the case.

The south wasn't keen on taking Canada, as it would give the north even more power.

>Today historians generally agree that an invasion and temporary seizure of Canada was the central American military strategy once the war began. Given British control of the oceans, there was no other way to actively fight against British interests. President Madison Believe that food supplies from Canada were essential to the British overseas empire in the West Indies, and that an American seizure would be an excellent bargaining chip at the peace conference.

>>79330711
None of those are arguments. Enlighten me, if you think that I'm wrong?

Invasion of Canada was just a side quest and not everyone wanted it, in part because we already had more land than we knew what to do with.

>>79331037
The Invasion of Canada was only to be used as a bargaining chip. Congress never endorsed Canadian annexation, and they never set it as a objective of the campaign.

The Federalist didn't want it, and the Republic-Democrats were split on the issue.

Had the US taken Canada, it's difficult to think that Congress would have kept it.

Some did support taking upper Canada. Nobody wanted the tundra wasteland that the rest of Canada is.

>>79330878
>one senator

Many actually, as well as congressmen, several military officers, the president, and media of the day. The idea is also supported in America's actions.

>>79329908
Yes you can level an entire country into ruins but you are supposed to be the world police, dont be glad you were able to burn to death some poor rice farmers. And for your world police duty you do a horrible job.

>>79331186
>>79331186
I didn't literally meant one senator.
I mean that the majority of the congress didn't want it. and two proposals to support Canadian annexation were shot down.

The north didn't want it, the south didn't want it, the congress didn't want it.

I've never heard anything about the madison wanting it.

There will always be people supporting some type of conquering. I bet there is people today, who would support taking some piece of Canada. At least a corridor to alaska.

But that doesn't mean that it was the case. Most historians agree that the invasion of Canada was to be used as a bargaining chip to force britain to respect American sovereignty. Which by the end of the war, it did. As impressment and seizure of US ships stopped.

>>79331401
Impressment stopped before the war started

>>79331562
That is correct, it did. However news traveled so slowly in those days that we didn't know it.

>>79331562
Impressment stopped DURING the war.

>The impressment of seamen from American ships caused serious tensions between Britain and the United States in the years leading up to the War of 1812. After the defeat of Napoleon in 1814, Britain ended the practice; later conscription was not limited to the Royal Navy but covered all armed forces

>>79331631
You didn't recieve the news for over 3 years?
Why did America defund their navy if it was a war over naval issues and focus instead on the army?
Why did numerous politicians and officers claim the goal was Canada or part of it?
Why did America later commit some of the exact same crimes during the Civil War and Spanish-American War if they were so opposed to them?
Why does almost every non-American historian believe Canada was the main goal?
Why did every American learn this until the mid 20th century?

We didn't have the ability at this early phase for a major offensive war on hostile territory, thus conquering Canada was not a realistic goal.

The Mexican War was the first time the US Army had matured sufficiently to go to war on enemy turf and win.

>>79331842
>>79331632

>You didn't recieve the news for over 3 years?
Because he is wrong. impressment ended during the war not before.

>Why did America defund their navy if it was a war over naval issues and focus instead on the army?
Because there was no change of beating Britain at sea. The army had a much better chance.

>Why did numerous politicians and officers claim the goal was Canada or part of it?
Because the goal was to use canada as a bargaining chip. Technically, it was to be taken but not annexed. Also, the entire congress and states decides whether territories are annexed not a few congressmen.

>Why did America later commit some of the exact same crimes during the Civil War and Spanish-American War if they were so opposed to them?
Because the CSA was not a recognized country. The Brits recognized American after the Revolutionary war. The Confederates were not a nation but rebels. They were never recognized by anyone. So, no one was having their sovereignty violated.

>Why does almost every non-American historian believe Canada was the main goal?
They don't. Most historians think Canada was a bargaining chip and nothing more. Also, most non-amerian historians studying the war are brits or Canadians who want to paint this picture of their country being victims to big bad america taking their land. The First historian to propose the annexation of canada didn't do it until the 20th century, and He was American not Canadian.
>The idea was first developed by Marxist historian Louis M. Hacker and refined by diplomatic specialist Julius Pratt.

>Why did every American learn this until the mid 20th century?
I can say the same to you.

File: sadcat.jpg (58KB, 600x337px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 600x337px

>>79329310

I know, Johnny, but back then we were at least pretending to be independent and not openly bowing to the west like now.

>>79327632
https://desuarchive.org/int/thread/79226452/#79227820

I was the first guy to post this, I can see some other anon took it and ran with it but that's ok.

>>79332253

Then answer this, retard.

>>79330414
>>79330227

>>79332157
>Because there was no change of beating Britain at sea
No, but we did inflict the only defeats suffered by the Royal Navy in an almost 200 year unbroken stretch. From the early 18th century up to WWI, they never lost a naval engagement...except during the War of 1812.

>>79332376
Yes, But resources were funneled to the army rather than the navy.
The Navy was to have a defense and hit and run tactics.
Not major naval combat with Britain.

The Army was to fight Britain, which is where the resources went.

>>79332334
Northern Mexico is mostly desert though; that's why American stereotypes of Mexico always involve cactuses and adobe buildings, because that's the part of the country that borders us.

>>79332833
Man don't bother replying to him. This Mexican is a persistent butthurt troll on /int/ for months. I suspect he has relatives who are cartel members and he's not happy at Trump's tougher approach to border security.

>>79333001
You're nothing more than an idiot though based on how stupid are your posts.

>>79332833
>let me tell you about your country

>>79322507
>Won 1812
>Won Korea

Also
>Won the Civil War
If I hit myself hard enough in the head and I pass out, did I win a fight?

>>79333980
Civil wars are still wars.

See here is the thing.

The US is SORTA terrible in war. Not Italian tier, but close.

I'll explain why.

First they won the American-Mexican war, which honest is not much. It's mexico after all.
But to them it was a great victory.

Then came Spain. Spain at that point was literally worse than Portugal. No colonies, no power, corrupted to the core. A hollow husk of what it was. But still, a new world country beating a former Euro superpower, it gave them prestige.


Then WW1 where they arrived late and take some credit.

Then WW2 where they did the same. They never really fought in land in numbers, they nuked Japan.

Now there is nothing wrong for what they did above. They won , they didn't spend manpower like crazy and they didn't get attacked at home. Well done in my opinon.

However this led to the idea that they were good at war by themselves.

The rest is history. They completely fucked up all wars they went to afterwards losing or making fools of themselves.

Not that it matters. The US from 1900's to the 90's is a different US from the 2000's onward so it's not fair to compare.

>>79334773
They are internal conflicts