What are some of the USA's worst military defeats?

do your own homework

>>32577721
Philippines 1942...hands down.

>>32577721
Operation Eagle Claw
Kasarine Pass

>>32577721
That's not even a proper White House, it's just a monkey model.

A real White House is impervious to all forms of physical damage.

>>32577721
USA has never been defeated

>>32577759
>muh blowout windows

Hah

HAH

File: 1329317322182.png (367KB, 494x621px) Image search: [Google]

367KB, 494x621px

>>32577759
i kek'd

>>32577767

Vietnam, Afganistan, Iraqi Ocupation, 1812

>>32577785
Afganistan

>>32577803
Afganistan

>>32577806
Afganistan

>>32577803
>wat

>>32577785
4 military and political victories?

>>32577811
Afghanistan

>>32577721
U2, F117, RQ-170, Stealth Hawk, EP-3

>>32577721
Peral Harbour

>>32577785
Vietnam- military victory, political objectives met
Afghanistan- Taliban overthrown, democratic gov't set up, and is still in power
Iraq- Saddam overthrown, democratic gov't set up, still standing despite many hardships
1812- what is status quo antebellum for $200, Alex?

>>32577893
>1812- what is status quo antebellum for $200, Alex?

>What is starting a war only to fail to achieve your objectives and then getting your capital burned down.

>>32577893
>Vietnam- military victory, political objectives met
The objective was that North Vietnam takes South Vietnam?
>Afghanistan- Taliban overthrown, democratic gov't set up, and is still in power
And it's still a fucking mess filled with Taliban and worse
>Iraq- Saddam overthrown, democratic gov't set up, still standing despite many hardships
See above
>1812- what is status quo antebellum for $200, Alex?
>moving the goalposts

>>32577721
they lost to farmers once
fucking Vietnamese farmers

>>32578078
How many times have you won against them?

>>32577854
>thousands of sorties
>ONE F-117 shot down

are you serious, how is that a serious military defeat?? Thats a damn good record.

>>32577779
you had one job anon and you fucked it up!

>>32577931
North Vietnam signed the Paris Accords. our goals were in-fact met at the time, and the Paris Accords held for a year after we left. the NV went back on their word, but it can be regarded as a separate war.

>>32578151
???

File: f117shootdownpostcardrh2.jpg (29KB, 570x364px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 570x364px

>>32578139
stealth plane shot down by 60's slav shit - it's pretty humiliating

File: image.jpg (101KB, 500x382px) Image search: [Google]

101KB, 500x382px

>>32577913
>Capitol was burned down
>British were still unable to win

>>32578189
>Territory that was being invaded was held
Sounds like they won to me

>>32578189
The Argentines won the Falkland's war because the UK didn't capture Argentina.

File: 1483791429387.jpg (54KB, 540x960px)

54KB, 540x960px

>>32577893

Vietnam's political objectives were NOT met. The South Vietnam state was NOT preserved.

>>32577785
1812 resulted in a repulsed British presence, so no loss there. Afghanistan is still ongoing, but the State there is still functioning with minimal US so progress has been made. Iraq is essentially a success because it has managed to contain ISIS, business is going on and Al-Qaeda is not in power while a democratic gov't is, however biased towards Sunnis that might be.

File: kek.jpg (23KB, 230x230px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 230x230px

>>32578189
>definitive proof that simply taking the capital will never truly defeat your enemies

>>32578266

who is this boy and where can i fuck her

>>32578211
Just like how America held SV when the Peace Accords were signed?
Top kek Limey

File: serbiastronk.jpg (7KB, 189x267px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 189x267px

>>32578179

>>32577751
This

Philippines always gets forgotten

>>32578326
I never said we didn't, we achieved some political goals like stopping the rampant press ganging, but the annexation of Canada was doomed, we could not have held it, and frankly we weren't really a blip on their radar with Napoleon about

>>32578300
Axis and Allies has lied to me so much

>>32578241

Taking Argentina was never an objective.

>>32578398
And.....carry on with that line of thinking.....

>>32578364
How rampant was that press ganging?

Because it's always sounded to me like an excuse for a war

Like how the British said the treatment of black subjects by Boers was the reason for the Boer War

File: 1483715611432.jpg (27KB, 460x259px)

27KB, 460x259px

>>32577759

>>32578411
Don't be a mong lad

>>32578423
Press ganging was a pretty big thing, it wasn't just some thing the bongs were doing to particularly spite the US, it wasn't uncommon for men in britain to wake up on board a ship after getting pissed up
I think the reason it was particular noteworthy then was obviously the bongs were much more focused on what was going on in Europe, and decided they needed sailors bad

>>32577853
Afghanistan

>>32578476
No, I mean how many Americans was it happening to for it to be the main reason behind an invasion of Canada

>>32578300
That was pre-Industrial times when the American National identity wasn't there yet. Who gives a fuck about DC if all you care about is NC?

>>32578483
Invading Canada was a side goal. There was anti-British sentiment already in almost half the population with the French Canadians. It was also a pretty unstable strategic situation to have you're strongest strategic enemy with a colony roughly the landmass of you country to the north.

>>32578161
>but it can be regarded as a separate war.

>Go in there to avoid a revolution.
>Fail to stop such revolution.
>Victory.

South asia fell into the comunist influence for 2 decades with no US implication during all this time but it was a victory.

I think we have a severe case of burgerbrain here.

>>32578483
It know it was used as part of their reasoning, but yeah you're most probably right, there was a lot more too it than just press ganging, it was probably figured to be a good time to show to Britain and the world they're another proper nation of the world, and shouldn't just be fucked with lightly, in which case it would be a success is some ways, US - UK relations pretty much improved from then on in and the press ganging that was happening was toned down
I don't know if the annexation of Canada was an initial goal of the war, but it seemingly became one
I'd certainly say there was more to it than press ganging though

>>32578517
Canada seemed pretty damn loyal to the Crown tbqh, lots of people had been driven out of the colonies during the revolution for supporting the crown, and the French Canadians were a fair minority even then

>>32577721
Civil war

>>32578583
When Hull invades Windsor, he retreats to Detroit with 500 Canadians joining with him. Remember that only 25 years later there would be rebellions against England for the cause of self government. The Maritimes were close to joining the Union or confederation as well.

There was more loyalist sentiment then in America but it's not hard to see why, with the info they had at the time, that the Canadians would turn against the British.

File: 7720be92d257d8fdf453a9337565418c.jpg (30KB, 512x384px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 512x384px

>>32578632
>US Military Defeats
>Civil war
Are you retarded?

>>32578161
>goals were in-fact met at the time

that's easy to say when you water down the goals into something that is politically acceptable to Hanoi in the short term.

For example, the Paris Accords allows NVA to encamp in conquered SV territory.

As John Negroponte said: "We bombed the North Vietnamese into accepting our concessions." Any claim that the US met their originally stated political and military goals is a pathetic fantasy.

>>32578266
>1812 resulted in a repulsed British presence, so no loss there.
Never mind that the Royal Navy was sinking merchant ships by the dozen, and generally controlled the Atlantic Ocean.

Or that the US's stated objective during the war was to annex Canada, which it failed to do.

Or that the British didn't even really care about the war, because they were dealing with fucking Napoleon who had conquered the rest of Europe.

>>32578813
>Canadian history through the lens of American education
Wow.

>The Maritimes were close to joining the Union or confederation as well.
Daily Reminder that Nova Scotia was the 14th Colony, that didn't join the Revolution. And was not going anywhere with the largest British naval base in the Northwest Atlantic as its capital city.

>>32578526
>Go in there to avoid a revolution.

Try reading a book.

>>32580633
>Or that the US's stated objective during the war was to annex Canada
>American history through the lens of Canadian education

>>32580815
>implying it wasn't a wargoal
The lengths Ameriboos will rewrite history to make it so they've never lost a war, is fucking retarded.

File: smug.gif (1MB, 320x180px)

1MB, 320x180px

>>32577721

>Canadians casually forget the tornado that wrecked their shit afterwards.

How much time ya got op

File: operation cottage.png (96KB, 318x744px) Image search: [Google]

96KB, 318x744px

Operation Cottage was a fucking mistake.

>>32577751
This and Pearl Harbor are what comes to mind.
Pearl Harbor being a failure of intelligence and underestimation of the enemy's intentions/capability. And the Philippines being a complete failure of MacArthur as a commander. He may have went on to win some victories, but how he wasn't dismissed/demoted after that disaster is beyond me.

>>32578266
>Muh political objectives
>Muh "South Vietnam only lost after we left"

If your enemy takes your position after you leave it does not mean you never technically lost it. It means you abandoned your position while your enemy was still in position to take it.

File: 1446519799900.png (543KB, 650x632px) Image search: [Google]

543KB, 650x632px

every time lel

>>32577785
>>32577803
>>32577806
>>32577811

But we never declared war on Afganistan?

>>32581011
After you're negotiated a peace treaty and war has ended, you've won. The war is over. Whatever happens after that is a new affair.

Did Germany win WW1 because after a 20 year period of peace, they eventually captured Paris?

>>32581021
Canada didn't exist at the time.

>>32581008
>but how he wasn't dismissed/demoted after that disaster is beyond me.
Political reasons I believe. He became famous among Americans for his defense of the Philippines, and demoting him would likely have not been well received civvies.

>>32577853
>>32577811
>>32577806
>>32577803
>>32577785

all these people are wrong because afghanistan is still an ongoing defeat

out of a somewhat ironic twist of fate and karma we did however destroy the soviet union with donkeys and stinger missiles through proxy in afghanistan

i guess what goes around comes back around

>>32578526
B-BUT MCDONALDS IN VIETNAM!!!!

File: M1A2-Layout.png (99KB, 675x284px) Image search: [Google]

99KB, 675x284px

>>32581068
Yes, it did.
Canada as we know it began in 1775.

What you're thinking of is confederation.
Confederation changed nothing.
It was purely an administrative restructuring.

>>32581048
>After you're negotiated a peace treaty and war has ended, you've won.
Who wins? Both sides?
Can Japan still win WWII if they make peace treaty with Russia?

>>32581008
>failure of intelligence and underestimation of the enemy's intentions/capability
While not technically a military defeat, 9/11 was a result of the same shit.

>>32580983
Didn't the Canucks cause a fair number of American casualties in this?

>>32578179
>invisible
That's not how stealth works tho...

>>32581048

still waiting for the US government to impose its will on Hanoi... any day now...

>After you're negotiated a peace treaty and war has ended, you've won

That might make sense if the US were dictating terms to NV, which they most definitely did not.

During the Paris Accords negotiation it was the NV delegation that made all the demands and the US government made all the concessions to try to stick to Nixon's "Peace with Honor" electoral pledge by putting up some semblance of negotiated terms.

In fact the US was so desperate to get the whole thing over with, they offered even more concessions to the NV, but launched Linebacker II to try to cover up their position of diplomatic weakness to a gullible public.

>>32577721
9/11

how the fuck do some random arabs who can't even read hijack planes and fly it into towers ?

any other country peoples heads would have been rolling and get there ass in jail but usa nope

>>32581048
If the German army followed the armistice agreements to the bare minimum, ignored the provisions for military reductions and Rhineland disarmament, then marched back into France in 1920 and the rest of the world did fuck all about it then yes, history would have recorded Germany as the victors of WW1.

North Vietnam saw that US forces were willing to leave, and knew that once we left the political climate would make a redeployment of forces impossible.

Were a Korea like stalemate created and maintained I would call that a victory, or at least not a defeat. On the other hand, if US forces left South Korea tomorrow due to political pressure at home and North Korea invaded in 2018, the Norks could and would rightfully claim that they were the ultimate victors of the Korean war.

File: readImage.jpg (7KB, 222x225px)

7KB, 222x225px

>>32577759
You son of a bitch, I got cracked ribs and you damn near killed me.

>>32581321
no, 9/11 was the result of no one thinking anyone was trying to launch attacks of that nature. the only people to blame for 9/11 are the pissed of sand niggers. up until that point no one even thought of weaponizing airliners to attack civilian targets; mostly because no one wanted to murder thousands of people and bring the wrath of the most powerful country in the world.
the US was working under the assumption that anyone that insane would be unable to pull off anything as sophisticated than a part time position at krogers. unfortunately they failed to comprehend, and still don't understand, the scale of the insanity that is wahhabism. that whole country should be glassed, immediately. president bush should have ordered the invasion of saudi arabia the moment he recieved the video from bin laden. instead, they're considered friends.

File: 1446516765374.jpg (166KB, 953x780px) Image search: [Google]

166KB, 953x780px

>>32581230
>>32581230
>Canada as we know it began in 1775.
spicy

Battle of Bladensburg in 1814. Allowed the capture of Washington and the burning of the government buildings.

File: IMG_7946.jpg (70KB, 526x520px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 526x520px

>>32577721
Segregation

File: 1481214032821m.jpg (85KB, 1024x682px) Image search: [Google]

85KB, 1024x682px

>>32580633

>a bunch of sunken merchant ships

Yeah bud I dont think that has any great strategic impact on anything.

>failing to annex Canada

Not sure how that was gonna be possible in the first place but its not like the accomplished any of their goals. You guys left DC as soon as you burned it because you knew you couldnt hold it.

The War of 1812 was a stalemate, revising it to anything else is stupid.

>>32581011

This is simplistic reasoning. We left after losing the support of the American people, NOT after accomplishing the fortification of the South Vietnam state. We lost politically, while militarily we absolutely had success. And how could we not?

Vietnam was a defeat politically, not militarily, but we must remember that we use the military to achieve political goals in the first place. So if the political goal is done for, the military effort hardly matters.

In other words, the lack of resolve of the American people resulted in alot of good men dying for a whole lot of nothing.


To put it plainly for you, we were there teaching our friend how to fight against an aggressive bully, but after mom called us home because she didnt like what she saw, that friend got beat the fuck up.

As a result, Vietnam was completely isolated from us for some time.

>>32583700
>while militarily we absolutely had success. And how could we not

Simple, by the military leadership failing to even come up with a coherent military strategy to achieve political goals, then coming up with an utterly meaningless metric to define military success (specifically, guesstimated body counts).

This allows battles where the US took unexpectedly high casualties to be deemed as a success (we think the other side lost more!)

>>32577721
>destroy monument to national heritage
lmao who cares
>pay taxes to defend your land and person
FUCK oFF BRITCUK rEeeeEE!

>>32580633
>US' stated objective was to annex Canada.
Nope, that was an objective, however that was a means to an end, which was telling the Brits to fuck off

>>32583771

This is rather a case where we could afford to not have a true goal. As I said, the real battle was in politically motivating ARVN and the Southern Vietnamese govt to resist communism, which really reached its culmination with projects like MACVSOG, or the CIA's various operations there etc.

The military was there to just guarantee the existence of the South Vietnamese state so that the political machinations could be achieved.

Frankly we could have just let the whole military run loose in Vietnam and because of the size and scope of our military and resources compared to the North, we would have been fine as long as our political goals were organized (these weren't).

>>32580732

Nova Scotia was not present at a single Continental Congress, they were not invited, they had literally no stake in the Revolution.

You can say these things about Georgia, who didn't revolt but still joined the USA postwar, but Nova Scotia had literally nothing to do with the Revolution.

>>32580633

>Paris was occupied by Nazis. France ceased resistance and had their navy sunk by their own allies. After a series of humiliating military losses France capitulated and cooperated with Nazi occupiers. Therefore France lost WWII

That's what you soind like, even though France obviously did not lose WWII. Hell, the Americans even managed to repulse the British and all of the important people and documents were evacuated ahead of the sacking of DC. The British took buildings, burned them, were pushed out, and then signed a peace treaty recognizing the rights and sovereignty of the United States and her sailors, which was the real reason behind the war.

I don't even understand why leaves and bongs give a shit about a year from 200 years ago anyway, why do you want to argue about that shit now? Literally the only thing that matters now is the Special Relationship between the US, UK, ANZACS, and Canada.

I challenge everyone in this thread to say something kind and positive about the opposite side

Canada: poutine is actually really tasty

UK: your pubs are vastly superior to our bars

>>32578179
I wouldn't consider shooting down an aircraft whose technology was rapidly becoming obsolete as any kind of defeat, and it sure as shit wasn't a "Victory" for anyone. Plus the pilot was back at Aviano in less than 8 hours, courtesy of the friendly neighborhood PJs, and the Serbs had no fucking idea that he was rescued right under their noses.

>>32578326
Once Nixon resigned, the North saw the opportunity to move on SV, he was the only American politician they truly feared (they thought he was crazy and said so on numerous occasions), They calculated (correctly) that there would be no more military or material support from the US with Ford in the Oval Office.

>>32584088

That pilot was a grade-A retard.

>>32583875

Sophistry. The politicians laid out their goals (however absurd), the military at the least needs to define a semi-coherent strategy to achieve them.

If MACV/CIA was the culmination of what you deem to be the crucial theater in Vietnam, then the American defeat there is even more disastrous than the military setback. MACV/CIA operations in Vietnam were a total debacle in every way.

>Frankly we could have just let the whole military run loose in Vietnam and because of the size and scope of our military and resources compared to the North

Yeah, I'm sure an attempted occupation of North Vietnam would have worked out fantastically for the US military, considering they had setbacks against the NVA even from within SV territory. How do you come up with these lines?

File: 1429126837967.png (87KB, 326x722px)

87KB, 326x722px

>>32577721
Imagine being in this goat rope.

>>32577721

1913 with the creation of the Federal Reserve
1933 when the bank cartel further concentrated/entrenched themselves

>and pleb actually wonder why the banks always bail themselves/their biggest creditors out
>don't worry, the last recession only de-valued the dollar 10.3% as a result of the Fed's QE policies and bailout interest
>I'm sure everything will work out

Korean war
Vietnam war
Afghanistan
Iraq
Peral Harbour
9/11
That one battle in WW2 where the USN suffered over a hundred casualties attacking a deserted island

>>32584502

>Korean War

What?

>Iraq

What? The occupation was a terrible idea, it was a political defeat, but a resounding military success. Iraqi military resistance was crushed in months. I disagree with the war, but the invasion was textbook.

>Afghanistan

Pretty much the same as Iraq, military success, political defeat. Again, I don't really like the fact that we stayed, but in the aftermath of 9/11, with Americans everywhere screaming for blood, we had to invade someone, in hindsight we shouldn't have gone in, but hindsight is 20/20

>Pearl Harbor

Wasn't really a battle, sneaky fucking Japs

>9/11

Definitely wasn't a battle, it was as much a battle as the bombing of Dresden or Hiroshima

>Alaska

Yeah, that's pretty tragic. Canadian and American lives lost for absolutely no reason.

>>32584601
>The occupation was a terrible idea

implying an occupation didn't come as a packaged deal with the invasion

>resounding military success
>political defeat

Political and military are one and the same for an occupation and counterinsurgency, so one wonders how the Iraq occupation was a success (forget about resounding, that's just stupid).

>>32584960

The OP was about military defeats. Iraq was NOT a military defeat.

>>32584474
Does it really count when almost all of those casualties come from a ship hitting a mine that the japs left?

>>32584974

The stated intent of the US government was to occupy Iraq and install a friendly government, as I recall the term used was to spread the "winds of democracy". Post-invasion counterinsurgency ties the political and the military goals together, so any attempt to separate the two is disingenuous.

Thomas Ricks wrote in "Fiasco" that most of the US military leadership deliberately ignored planning for COIN operations, so they either drank the political kool-aid or they were incompetent. Either way it is the job of the military to devise a strategy and their failure to do so, much less execute it, is a military defeat.

File: maxresdefault.jpg (210KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

210KB, 1920x1080px

>>32577721

Battle of Bataan/

10,000 killed,
20,000 wounded,
75,000 imprisoned

>>32585039

As I said, I believe the US fucked up Iraq and Afghanistan, but I think the spirit of the OP was asking for specific instances where the US military was beaten by a foreign military. Iraq is hardly one of those times.

It is obvious that the political objective wasn't met, but the US never suffered a full on defeat at the hands of a foreign enemy.

I think the WWII Phillipines would be a good contender for worst US military defeat.

>>32584130
No, whoever decided that F-117s should fly the same route night after night without EW support is retarded.

>>32585164

He was the one who did that. It was against regs but he was too lazy to change his flight plan. Also, when being recurs he fucked up just about everything. He ran at the rescue team with his handgun out.

>>32585133
>I think the spirit of

Translation: re-define what constitutes a military defeat to try to pass off clear US military defeats as something else.

Apparently losing to insurgents does not count?

>>32585313

>implying

If I'm willing to admit that the US lost Vietnam, parts of Afghanistan, the incursion into N Korea, and the early Pacific, what the fuck do I have to gain from defending the US in Iraq? Are you retarded? Why are you intentionally being a fucking prick?

You know what? No, the US has never lost a war. We lost the propaganda war in Iraq, Saigon literally never fell, we still are in Afghanistan so we haven't lost that, and North Korea is a hellhole while the South is a bastion of Capitalism and Democracy, so we won that.

Also, the Japs deserve another bomb because I'm still mad because Pearl Harbor.

Every country in the world besides the US is a joke and every person on earth that isn't a citizen of the greatest country in existence should unironically kill themselves.

>>32585390
>what the fuck do I have to gain from defending the US in Iraq

Who knows, people do stupid shit for stupid reasons.

Maybe people defend the American "victory" in Iraq because it is still fresh on many peoples' minds, unlike Vietnam where only bitter old retardeds and gullible young edgelords still hang onto their fantasies.

Fast forward 30 years and the Iraq debacle will be talked about in the same way as Vietnam today.

>>32585441

The US military demolished Saddam's troops.

The US was then hamstringed by shitty general-politicians and an even shittier ROE with absolutely no direction or sense of place.

How America Lost Iraq by Aaron Glantz gives excellent insight into exactly how the US completely flubbed the post-invasion occupation. It had very little to do with the US military failing to meet military objectives, and almost everything to do with the politicians and occupation government fucking up in every possible way imaginable.

>>32581011
>enemy breaks treaty agreement
>steamrolls corrupt SV gov
No fucks given.

>>32585313
US led puppet government is still in power.

>m...muh iran

Got btfo at tikrit 2: fogaloogaloo. General solimeme left and never came back, many militia groups ragequit.

>>32585503

I already mentioned Thomas Ricks' book "Fiasco" where he mentions the failure of the military leadership to comprehend the need for COIN, then their ignorance of its practice even with the years of experience in Vietnam.

This is not politicians telling the generals what to do, this is the generals ignoring the facts on the ground then ordering actions which harm the military/political objectives.

The notion that COIN success is somehow a political and not a military goal is ludicrous, as is blaming politicians for the failure of the military to devise and implement an appropriate strategy.

>The US military demolished Saddam's troops.

Irrelevant since 99% of the war was spent on tasks other than that. This is obvious to everyone, I simply find it amusing that most revisionists open their bullshit arguments with an irrelevant and obvious fact.

>>32585529

Considering the handpicked candidates pushed by US government never won a single election, one can argue there was never a puppet Iraqi government... another failed objective.

>>32577785
>>32577803
The wars in the Middle East are not against a country. We are at war with ideologues from all over the world who want to destroy white Western European civilization. There was never even a win condition established.

>>32585599
Considering how the iraqi goverment has been consistantly turning to US assistance for the last two years, one could argue your pipedream is a sad falsehood perpetuated by a man who cant stand to see america win.

>>32585625
>Iraq asks for help against ISIS and gets it
>they must be a puppet!

Maybe Iraq knows they can ask and receive US assistance because they and everyone else in the world knows that ISIS is the direct consequence of the US invasion, and if the US government wants history to be written a little bit nicer for them, they really ought to help Iraq destroy ISIS.

>america win
That boat never sailed, it sank in the harbor.

>>32577721
when obama won both presidential campaigns as an illegal foreign born candidate

>>32581008
>>32581087
the thing is pearl harbor had just happened, so they should have fucking expected the phillipines. they dropped the ball big time

File: execution of Admiral Byng.jpg (520KB, 1280x724px)

520KB, 1280x724px

>>32583700
>You guys left DC as soon as you burned it because you knew you couldnt hold it.

the force that burned DC was a muhreen raiding force so it wasn't like they were going to hold DC for long before returning to their ships. the whole point was to fuck shit up then leave

I'm pretty sure if Vice-Admiral Cochrane did something as stupid as try to hold washington with a small raiding force of Royal Marines(while also trying up most of the North American Station's marines) he would have rightfully been given the Admiral Byng treatment

File: aaaaaaaaaaciawarning.jpg (118KB, 550x674px) Image search: [Google]

118KB, 550x674px

>>32581437
You dumb mate? CIA warned about Al Qaeda wanting to launch an attack months before 9/11.

>>32585665
>US help has conditions
>said conditions is telling iran to GTFO
>they immediately comply

This is ignoreing all the "little" things like aid, military sales, warm relations, etc.

>MURRICA CREATED ISIS #FOIL

Well if you want to go that route, fuck it. Political masterstroke requireing iraq to be completely dependent on the US, result is the same, just thrice as impressive.

>That boat never sailed, it sank in the harbor.

As i said, your hateboner is far to large to give credit where it is due.

>>32577759
>monkey model

And run by Democrats with almost no training.

>>32585801
>This is ignoreing all the "little" things like aid, military sales, warm relations, etc.

And that says puppet how?

>said conditions is telling iran to GTFO

How so, where, proof that Iraq actually did this, etc... sounds like just more of the same Iran posturing that has been going on for 30 years.

>Well if you want to go that route, fuck it. Political masterstroke requireing iraq to be completely dependent on the US, result is the same, just thrice as impressive.

It's not like the entire region will forever distrust the US government for dropping ISIS into their laps, even if it is unintentional. And yes, the US created ISIS by accident: hence direct consequence of invasion, as opposed your "US created ISIS" strawman. Multiple Bush era figures have admitted as much, along with Tony Blair.

>As i said, your hateboner is far to large to give credit where it is due.

It's called reality, sometimes it doesn't swing your way.

File: AmericaHasArrived.jpg (181KB, 980x646px) Image search: [Google]

181KB, 980x646px

>>32577721
Lol a bunch of rednecks could wreck the no gun limeys now that their navy is a fucking joke.

Pic slightly related:

>>32581008
>but how he wasn't dismissed/demoted after that disaster is beyond me.
Because he was following orders to deliberately lose the phillipines + his bombers on the ground

>>32585863
>And that says puppet how?

Oh, so now you are stateing the US created such a perfect goverment that it follows US policy and does what it wants under its own volition.

God damn thats even more impressive than the CIA ISIS meme.

>How so, where, proof that Iraq actually did this, etc...

>>In return for air support, the United States demanded that the Iranian-led Shiite militias withdraw from the battle. The Iraqi government agreed; though the militia commanders objected and said they would boycott the fight, this had the effect of clearing the way for U.S. involvement and liberation of the city.

Iran lead militias, and the general has not been back since.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Battle_of_Tikrit

>it was all a crazy accident

Then the US did not create isis, isis formed by itself due to a vaccum of power. Two entirely different things.

>It's called reality, sometimes it doesn't swing your way.

It will be funny to see how you react when the reality of my statements are 100% proven via source above, and your memes fall flat.

Again, you cant admit american sucess.

>>32581437
The neo-cons were 100% part of the 9/11 attack
It fit their plans as a casus belli too well, plus other shit

>>32586052
>Oh, so now you are stateing the US created such a perfect goverment that it follows US policy and does what it wants under its own volition.

accepting aid in dealing in arms is not the same as following US policy

>Iran lead militias, and the general has not been back since.

So where's the part about how US aid is predicated on the Iranians not returning?

I did see that one line from a US general saying Iranian participation could be positive, nice.

>Then the US did not create isis, isis formed by itself due to a vaccum of power. Two entirely different things.

Nobody except you said the US created ISIS. I said ISIS is the direct consequence of the US invasion, which is undeniable.

>my statements are 100% proven via source above

Like how your linked wikipedia article actually seems to go against your point?

Meanwhile go read Tony Blair's reaction to the Chilcot report in regards to the origins of ISIS, as well as the reaction of Bush admins, most of who do not deny that the invasion played a major role in creating the conditions for ISIS to thrive.

1812
Canada Wew

>>32585863
>And yes, the US created ISIS by accident
It was not an accident to have Mccain and others going there to organize, fund, and arm jihadists for the purposes of ousting Assad

>>32586099
All evidence suggests the US directly created ISIS
Israel continues to aid ISIS

>>32586099
>accepting aid in dealing in arms is not the same as following US policy.

Being how US policy in regards to iran is to be dependent on the US, it sure is.

>So where's the part about how US aid is predicated on the Iranians not returning?

Uhh, did you miss the part where US aid was not happening till iran left?

>Nobody except you said the US created ISIS.

See

>>32586110

Its a common meme.

>Like how your linked wikipedia article actually seems to go against your point?

Ahh, we are in the "ignoreing facts i dont like stage".

America told iraq to tell iran to fuck off. They did. End of story.

>>32586131
Trump believes it
Putin believes it
All indications point to the US having a direct hand in creating ISIS
Good enough for me

>>32578480
Afghanistan

>>32586143
>Two memes push a meme.

So suprising.

Meanwhile zero real evidence exists.

>>32586131
>Being how US policy in regards to iran is to be dependent on the US, it sure is.

So you cherry-pick a single issue and posit that the entire Iraqi government is a US puppet because they accepted US air assistance for a single battle a year and half ago in return for telling the Iranian militias to back down for that battle?

Quite a stretch statement there.

>Uhh, did you miss the part where US aid was not happening till iran left?

The article states that the condition was for that battle only, moreover in the same linked NPR article there were statements that the Iranians never fully left, then no mention of Iranian participation since then.

Also when you said Iran "GTFO" as a condition of US aid (without actually clarifying that all you can demonstrate is a NPR qualified quote on Iranian participation in the Tikrit battle), one wonders where exactly Iran "GTFO" of? Did they abandan their successful attempts to influence the Iraqi government in Baghdad? That was the first thought I had when you said "GTFO", not some battle in Tikrit 18 months ago.

>See

That is not me, and that guy posted *after* I made my statement. Irrelevant from my point of view.

>America told iraq to tell iran to fuck off. They did.

America told the Iranians to leave Tikrit (according to NPR), and they may or may not have (according to the same NPR article), and there is zero proof that continued American assistance against ISIS in the 18 months since is predicated on Iran staying out.

There, FTFY. Let's stick to the facts.

>>32586189
>muh single battle

Iraian led militias have not been opersting in country since that battle anon.

>moreover in the same linked NPR article there were statements that the Iranians never fully left

False, the article said there were unconfirmed reports of a few militias staying. Iranians were gone, some militias acted under iran/american leadership after.

>then no mention of Iranian participation since then.

There has not been.

>one wonders where exactly Iran "GTFO" of?

To iran, clearly.

>Did they abandan their successful attempts to influence the Iraqi government in Baghdad?
>successful

Did you miss the part where the iraq PM told them to fuck off?

>That was the first thought I had when you said "GTFO", not some battle in Tikrit 18 months ago.

Im sorry you are living 2 years in the past?

>and they may or may not have

Iranians left. The militias may or may not have, but they are under iraqi/us leadership.

>and there is zero proof that continued American assistance against ISIS in the 18 months since is predicated on Iran staying out.

Being as iran has not been back since, its pretty obvious

File: OurEnemyAmericansJap.jpg (123KB, 1088x771px) Image search: [Google]

123KB, 1088x771px

>>32577751
I always get a kick out of the Japanese propaganda they made for the filipinos back then. They portrayed it as a war of liberation, asians liberating their fellow asians from colonialism.

File: 52e06900f6d82fa6dca1b10a2bc4b2ec.jpg (84KB, 527x800px) Image search: [Google]

84KB, 527x800px

Problem though is that they ended up being even more brutal than the americans

>>32586651
Oh, you think this is riberation?

Haha! here bomb, fuc you.

>>32584984
>does it really count when they lost troops during a war

Yes you fucking moron, the whole point is that they lost to an enemy who wasnt even there.

>>32586862
An enemy mine was there

>>32577779
i know that guy i served with him

>>32578179

Sure, it's embarrassing in the sense that American hubris and arrogance resulted in operational mistakes leading to the shoot-down, however, if a peer opponent is going to rely on those mistakes in a war to avoid getting bombed to ashes, they're going to be disappointed.

>>32584416

>Sophistry. The politicians laid out their goals (however absurd), the military at the least needs to define a semi-coherent strategy to achieve them.

Not the guy you were talking to, but bullshit. The biggest problem with Afganistan, Vietnam and the second Iraq war was, and is, political leaders that are stupid as shit and military leaders that won't or can't tell them the goals expressed are unrealistic and pointless.

There was no military solution to Vietnam, Iraq or Afghanistan that the US people could or should have supported. When something is fucked up sending in the marines doesn't always make it better.

>>32578526

Sino-soviet split meant that "communist influence" was divided, too busy fighting each other to expand. For example the USSR aligned Vietnam against the PRC aligned Cambodia.

Much of the rest of south-east Asia was not communist dominated; Thailand, Malaysia, Singapore, Indonesia, Phillipines, and Brunei.

>>32577721
How come nobody posts the follow up painting with the Tornado killing all the British troops and putting out the flames?

fatniks and ameriboo's are the fucking worst.

>>32577931
Vietnam should be seen in the broader context of US policy in the Far East. While the US stalled the spread of communism in Indochina it was building up relations with the rest of Southeast Asia and later chumming it up with the Chinese as a check against both Hanoi and Moscow. As such while Vietnam fell the US can claim a kind of strategic victory in the larger Cold War context in the Far East.

>>32581437
Google for "operation northwoods" and note the similarities...

>>32586910
>Enemy Mine
Louis Gossett, Jr. as an alien. Good movie.

>>32577759
what did he mean by this

File: RphRZnQ.png (40KB, 315x826px)

40KB, 315x826px

>>32577721
if only they were as good at fighting as they were at burning houses down, kek

>>32587792
>fatnik

I've only ever seen this on /k/, and it's usually posted by one person in every thread that mentions the US. It's really embarrassing

Show us on the doll where the yanks touched you, kid

>>32588732
>he actually believes this is true
>people can't say the same thing or have similar ideas

Fucking kek, you're retarded. That's like saying everyone who goes "Vatnik" or "britcuck" or "Eurocuck\poor" is the exact same person.

File: 1474338479537.jpg (42KB, 480x480px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 480x480px

>>32588699
Oh fuck

>>32585053
>underrated post
Biggest military defeat for MacArthur.

File: 1483074033297.jpg (32KB, 607x559px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 607x559px

>>32588699
>elite royal marines getting utterly destroyed by an angry alcoholic, a few french pirates, some indians and a handful of farmers with rusty muskets

Christ bongs, how did you guys manage that?

>>32580322
>>Civil war
>Are you retarded?
not who you were responding to, but implying this and not the entire thread is autistic doesn't work.

>>32588888
>>32580322
Wait, are there Americans that don't understand the fact that the good guys lost the civil war?

>>32586910
it should be listed under the japanese forces it did great service to the emporer

>>32587215
>military leaders that won't or can't tell them the goals expressed are unrealistic and pointless

The US is not a dictatorship, the military leadership is expected to speak out against political malfeasance. And once the military leadership acceded to the political goals, their job is to craft a military strategy to fulfill said goals. Their failure to do so in all three wars you cited constitute a military failure.

Crying about "no solution" is not an excuse, especially when the military deliberately chose to forget the lessons from Vietnam in Iraq/Afghanistan.

>>32586279
>Iraian led militias have not been opersting in country since that battle anon.

Show proof and/or evidence that they are out of the country entirely.

>To iran, clearly.

"GFTO" of, not to. Learn to read. Did Iraq purge Iranian influence from their government at the behest of the Americans as a condition for assistance in Tikrit? If so, prove it.

>Being as iran has not been back since, its pretty obvious

Only in your head.

Looks like all you can prove is Iraq asked the Iranian militias to leave to get air support for one battle over 18 months ago and you have jack shit other than that, but somehow you construe Iraq to be a US "puppet" because of this, and will actually use this argument to demonstrate that the Iraq invasion was some masterful long-play.

Every conflict in the middle east.

File: gay.jpg (120KB, 540x517px) Image search: [Google]

120KB, 540x517px

>unironically considers the burning of a purposefully abandoned and at the time culturally insignificant building "one of the worst military defeats"
>Probably doesn't consider the burning of Toronto important

Make like a Canadian and leaf

File: .,.jpg (23KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 480x360px

>>32589500
>

>>32580322
>implying 90% of the war before Gettysburg wasn't an enormous embarrassment for the Union.

File: crab-attack-5.jpg (113KB, 420x295px) Image search: [Google]

113KB, 420x295px

>>32577721
Here's the thing: if you study war and strategy, you're going to quickly learn that there is a type of war that can't be won.

If you face an enemy who has:
> political popularity,
> uninhabited countryside or dense population to hide in,
> a source of weapons
> manpower to wage war
you do not win that war. It is impossible to find military solutions to these popular guerilla/insurgent movements.

But, you notice, these qualities define the weak party actors in every war that the US has fought for the last 75 years.

So why does the US keep picking these stupid fights with people who literally can't lose?

File: Americucks BTFO.png (1MB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1920x1080px

>>32588699
>>32588795
>>32588843
>>32589543

File: 1478898301032.jpg (634KB, 2036x1076px) Image search: [Google]

634KB, 2036x1076px

>>32589873
>limeys
>on /k/

File: 1440037260703.jpg (44KB, 500x281px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 500x281px

>>32589873
fucking S A V E D

S
A
V
E
D

>>32589873
>>32589920

Anyone got the one about the turk roaches?

Atleast Finnboos arent saying they won the Winter War

>>32589567
Yes but who won the war?

>>32583828
>capturing the objective with 33k casualties v 28k casualties as the aggressor with numerical advantage is a loss
hate to see what a victory would have looked like

>>32590277
>muh K/D ratio
So I guess Soviets won in Afghanistan.
When they retreated they killed like a million people with 15,000 dead and communist party was still in power. Following American logic in this thread, it was a fantastic victory.

>>32590359
US achieved all it's objectives in Hurtgen and killed the German offensive in the Ardennes.
How is that a loss?

>>32577785
>Afghanistan - Victory
>Iraq - Victory
>1812 - Stalemate
>Vietnam - Political defeat only
Your grasp of military history sucks.

>>32591308
>Vietnam- political loss only
You are seriously fucking retarded

>>32578526
So what you're saying is, if I by my short white lonesome face off against an NBA basketball team, proceed to lose horribly, then after everyone else's gone home and fucked their supermodel girlfriends I shoot a couple more shots unopposed on an empty court and call it a victory over that NBA team, I'm correct?

Wow, okay, you're so retarded it's a miracle you know how to breathe.

>>32577721
Strategically:
>Iraq
Miserable failure that along with Cablegate destabilized the Arab world and opened a geopolitical can of worms
>Afghanistan
A long war that in maybe 3 years will have been pointless.
>Vietnam
This is iffy. It failed in that South Vietnam and much of French Indochina fell to autocrats on the side of communists, but succeeded in that the Reds never made it into Thailand, Malaya, or Singapore. This saved the strategic Malacca Straits from Communist control and allowed capitalism to work its globalist magic and destroy the Reds economically.


Tactically,

>Pearl Harbor
Vastly an intelligence failure, but the decision to park aircraft close together at military airfields, position battleships outside of CONUS ports, and not have 24/7 PBY patrols around the area, proved disasterous.

>>32591308
>Afghanistan
>Iraq

oh lawdy

military history dilettantes are worse than race studies majors

>>32578161
Paris Accords were the IRL version of goalpost shifting, all for the US [attempting, in vain] to save face.
>muh loss with HONOR
"I fold famalam, ggwp" in diplomatic terms.

>>32591384
No it's more like being up at the end of the third quarter, then declaring that you've won and going home, then letting the opposing team go to town on your hoop, completely unopposed in the fourth quarter.

>>32591490
>kick their ass militarily
>force a very disfavorable treaty on them
>go home
>treaty stands over a year
yeah sure that's totally "quitting at the third quarter"

>>32591726
>force a very disfavorable treaty on them

say what now?

>>32591726
>force a very disfavorable treaty on them
It's not unfavourable if it's unenforceable.

That treaty wasn't worth the paper it was written with let alone the lives US soldiers paid for it with.

>The Taliban beheaded a woman in Afghanistan for shopping without a guardian.

Exactly what the fuck did The US and Canada accomplish if we start to leave tomorrow?

>>32591861

Exactly as much as if they stayed in for years: absolutely nothing.