Do amerimutts unironically think they didn't lose the vietnam war?

we won the moment when the first pair of freshly stitched Nikes rolled off their factory plant

yeah, i've seen that about, utterly bizarre

>that moment you realize America and the Soviet Union had a gigantic penis measuring contest that could have ended civilization just because they disagreed on economic systems and America wanted to sell mcdonalds to the Soviets

Yeah pretty much. Considering it was never declared a war by our congress to begin with. Presidents just ordered smaller amounts of troops to go into battle.
>B-but all the movies we made about soldiers with PTSD!
Other than the military industrial complex raining ungodly amounts of bombs onto the Vietnamese we really didn't do jack shit compared to what the South Vietnamese did. Of course most people only know about history through consumeristic bullshit, us being no exception. In fact, our history is especially misunderstood because of pop culture.

It was a war we sent ex convicts and random working class schmucks who didn't draft dodge to fight. Most of our soldiers had no fucking clue why we were there besides "to fight communism". To be frank, as an American, I think the NVA had some noble goals.

The Vietcong can go fuck themselves though.

Attached: 1502167649236.jpg (960x882, 59K)

brainwashed as fuck

t. someone that's crawled through the vietcong tunnels

this

>It was a war
Forgot to put "war" in quotations. It was a police action as per our laws. In my opinion we haven't had a real war since our civil war, even our involvement in WW2 was only mainly useful in terms of manufacturing output. Our civil war on the other hand completely revolutionized modern warfare and , to this day, no other casualty rates in any other sources of conflict we have fought have COMBINED been nowhere close to what we lost in our civil war.

they quit the war halfway through so they didn't really lose
like how uk would join a war halfway through on the winners side so they could win

Grats on being glorified policemen.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escalation_of_commitment#Vietnam_War
Apparently it looked like a bad idea but the USA still did it. I wonder of people in power were dumb or if they deliberately do something dumb because it produced work for weapon manufacturers or whatever.

no it was a strategic retreat you idiot

Attached: toad 263.png (420x420, 31K)

Americans think whatever their media tells them.

>Aussies actually went to fight in Vietnam

Any boomer niggers here old enough to remember freedom fries?

Attached: Amerisheep.png (501x333, 18K)

Status Quo Antebellum is a victory when you're fighting the greatest power on earth

No, what happened in 2003

Lol why did it fall?

No one won that war
>but w-w-we burned down the white house!
But not really though? you only burned down a portion of it.

France denounced the US led invasion of Iraq so they got really butthurt

French president (or whoever) pointed out the Iraq war was a really stupid idea and said they wouldn't take any part in it, US media chimped out, surrender monkeys etc. Some shop change the name of 'French fries' to 'freedom fries; turns out he French were right though.

>no one won that war
>Wage war of aggression
>objectives failed miserably
>get expelled
YOU ALSO LOST, yeah ok nice logic

>you only burned down a portion of it
if it were any other flag i'd think you must be trolling

Attached: 1557386887649.png (429x367, 244K)

And then that stupid manlet Sarkozy does Libya.

>let me tell you about your history
>Military stalemate; both sides' invasion attempts repulsed. Status quo ante bellum
What are you talking about you smug prick?

>it doesn't count unless they burn down your WHOLE capital building
lol wtf

>winning a war constitutes burning down a portion of a building
lol wtf

>o-only part of our capital got razed!
absolutely galactic-tier cope. no one but an american would be able to post something like that with a straight face.

Not really "lose" per say but just pulled out our troops because we didn't think it was worth saving jungle gook land. Could have easily destroyed them if we wanted to but didn't see the need to waste our effort. You COULD say the we won in the end because they're capitalist now but I'd admit that would be a desperate declaration.

>try to manifest destiny up north
>get btfo so bad you never try again
>We won!

Attached: 1523844668827.png (866x900, 356K)

based

>Status quo ante bellum
The British were not the ones to start the war, they expelled the Americans and sent the Yankee running home they successfully defended their territory.
American defeat, British Defensive victory Canada remained their forever and Americans never dared to try it again.

Nice reading comprehension of my post.

based

>However, the Prime Minister, Lord Liverpool, aware of growing opposition to wartime taxation and the demands of Liverpudlian and Bristolian merchants to reopen trade with America, realized Britain had little to gain and much to lose from prolonged warfare.
>Britain had little to gain and much to lose from prolonged warfare.
OH NO NO NO NO

You conveniently left out the other sides invasion. You can stop sucking their penises now.

>You conveniently left out the other sides invasion. You can stop sucking their penises now.
>Start a war
>get expelled
>whine about how the enemy launched attacks into your territory in a war you started
>THEY ENTERED OUR TERRITORY FOR NO REASON EVIL BRITISH INVADERS
Is this American logic?

>star a war
>get expelled
>invade
>get expelled
>sign a deal where nothing happened on both sides
>swede says this is a victory for Britain
>Neither side lost territory in the war,[j] nor did the treaty that ended it address the original points of contention—and yet it changed much between the United States of America and Britain.
Is this Swede logic?

Yes the British showed the Americans they were going to fight for their territory and the Americans never dared again.
British victory.

Also your argument would only be true if the war ended with the failed invasion of Canada but it didn't and went on for 2 more years.
>By 1814, both sides had either achieved their main war goals or were weary of a costly war that offered little but stalemate.
A battle even happened after the treaty was signed.

By that logic the north koreans or south koreans won the korean war. Gtfo with yo stupid ass

Literally have no idea what that war is but yes we probably won it.

based

What is your point? Britain didn't want a war with the US at the time or want anything we were busy fighting Napoleon. US did a sneak attack while Britain was busy, lost and got chased back into their own country.

USA failed it's objective of annexing and holding British territory meanwhile Britain successfully defended it's territory. How is this not a loss for the US? Is it because there are McDonalds in Canada now?

>How is this not a loss for the US?
American cope mechanism that's how.

what was there to gain exactly? the UK had no interest whatsoever in the United States, all dragging the war, which the americans had started, on did was to disrupt trade.

based

>What is your point?
My point is the war staled on until both sides agreed to stop fighting and you're calling it a victory like wtf is that shit.
>How is this not a loss for the US?
Because the war didn't end with the failure of the invasion?
>Is it because there are McDonalds in Canada now?
british banter is sure poor nowadays
>get btfo in an argument
>resort to sucking off the other brit poster
yikes from me

Says the warmongering nation of uk

basado

>what was there to gain exactly?
Considering the superior officers decided to invade the US back after it's victory over the failed invasion only to also get btfo and scurrying back to Canada.
What was there to gain? Idk whatever your dumb officers wanted I suppose. Notice how not once did I say the US "won" the war? You're the only one arguing that the UK did because the US didn't meet it's objectives even though the peace treaty was agreed upon both parties to not continue invading each other at no cost? US wanted land, they didn't get it, UK wanted...the colonies back? Idfk and they didn't get it. You can bring up other shit like "but we were fighting napoleon!" who cares.

Honestly nationalism like this is retarded, so what if they did lose a war 200 years ago? It's not even a relevant war historically I only know about it from people on int but no 'muh side are a goodies we win all the time like the superhero movies' shit

Use your shit for brains for one moment Yankee.
North Korea launched a war to re-unite Korea under their own banner, It ended with them being repulsed and South Korea still stands to this day.

So south korea won the korean war?

nationalism? the fuck you going on about.
> I only know about it from people on int but no 'muh side are a goodies we win all the time like the superhero movies' shit
I literally never said that one you dunce. You're the only one here arguing that you won a war when the internet says it was a stalemate but whatever.

Well they were still standing while their enemies objective was to annex them.
How much more clear does one need to be?

So they won the korean war? yes or no?

yanks are nuts they have that kevlar-like cope shield of some balkanite turbo-nationalist country despite ruling the entire planet.

yeah man brits are arrogant not samefag btw lol

we didn't lose shit. come try us for a rematch if you want it officially sorted out

Yes they won, Jesus Christ how much more clear does one need to be.

>yes they won
Hopefully you never become a historian.

There is a difference between aggressor and victim.

Also lay off the Wikipedia pages and use your brain for once.

>dude professors and the internet are wrong, listen to me man I know the true answer
Bit arrogant don't you think? Anyway, I'm only going to say this one more time. If the war ended after the first invasion and the US wanted peace and signed it and the general consensus who ever talks about this war seriously in a academic setting says the UK won, I'd agree with you but that isn't the case at all sorry bud you'll get em next time.

The Internet says it's a stalemate because unhealthily obsessed yanks edit-warred the relevant pages until everyone else gave up.

based

>dude this conspiracy!
Embarrassing. I also don't only get my info from wikipedia you donut.

based

Attached: 1557437358569.png (800x600, 58K)

Then where else do you get it from? Because virtually no one outside the USA thinks this way.

>Then where else do you get it from?
Google? Videos? Professors? Anywhere you get info from? Or do you all think that it's all one big american conspiracy. Also If your previous post was true then the Vietnam war on Wikipedia would be labeled as a US victory.
>Because virtually no one outside the USA thinks this way.
???????????????????????? That's a nice way of saying "I am everybody". Jesus christ man just get over it.

Look at the Iran-Iraq another "stalemate" war
>Iraq invades Iran with the intention of taking oil rich provinces
>Iran expels them
>Iraq fails in their objectives and their society,economy and military is exhausted
>Iran defends their territorial integrity,the government consolidates itself, Iranian/Shia Islamic regional influence grows
There is a clear victor here. As I said earlier think for once with your own brain and come to your own conclusion.

You sound a bit perturbed, mate. Anyway, what I said is a matter of public record, you don't have to take my word for it. Just look at the page history.

>You sound a bit perturbed, mate.
Nice ad hom but ok?
>Anyway, what I said is a matter of public record, you don't have to take my word for it. Just look at the page history.
????????????????????????????????

The Vietnam War was never a war over some romantic idea like acquiring territory, defending the homeland etc., rather to prevent the spread of communism.

The war was not vs. Vietnam it was vs. communism, in the grand scale- Vietnam, Korea etc. were all battles in the cold war. If you look at it proportionally, it makes sense, it's just like those proxy wars fought vs. russia in afghanistan.

The U.S. surely lost the vietnamese battle, though it was only after figuring out it was too costly to keep fighting a direct war that became much less important after they figured out the could depose regimes internally- like they did to my country, which incidentally was costly not in US lives, but in local ones and which turned became a resounding success for the US war against communism-

Indonesia is the most important ASEAN country, Thailand, Malaysia and Burma are all geopoltically more important than vietnam. These countries all had major communist movements during the 50s, 60s and 70s- the US also applied the similar methodologies in south america, which until even more recently has had strong communist movements.

But we see today who won the war.

Attached: The-Death-of-Ivan-Ilych1-235x274.jpg (235x274, 19K)

So in your eyes nothing is a stalemate? Always a victor and a loser? Also determined in the first months or year of the war?
>There is a clear victor here
Coincidentally you left out the other side as well as you did before and only showed Irans position. The war dragged on for 8 years.

Iran was not the aggressor that's the thing. There is a difference between aggressor and victim.
>iran stood their ground defended their country against foreign aggressors,the current government received legitimacy and their ideology gained ground
>Iran invaded a nation failed and completely devastated their country in every way
What exactly did Iraq gain from this and how is this not a Iranian victory?

>Iraq invaded a nation failed and completely devastated their country in every way

>What exactly did Iraq gain from this and how is this not a Iranian victory?
I don't know that war really well but clearly you're a bit biased and I already know what you're head is at. To you, objectives cannot be changed, to you nothing is a stalemate, to you if one side doesn't accomplish their goals they lose the war even though wars go on for awhile and typically both sides get shit on.
>
>Iraq invaded a nation failed and completely devastated their country in every way
Doesn't this hurt your own argument? You're saying a failed invasion is still a win even though it hurts and destroys an enemy. A US vietnam vet could make the same argument and yet you wouldn't agree.

How exactly does this hurt my argument?
Iraq invaded a foreign country failed in their objectives and fucked up their own country in every conceivable way. In other words they would be better off if they didn't do jack shit.
I already covered Iran they were the victim of foreign aggression.

The war of 1812 was not about Canada at all. We just attacked Canada and burned down Toronto because it was the easiest way to strike out at the Brits.

The cause of the war was Britain blockading our trade with France due to the Napoleonic wars. Moreover they would actually board our ships in our own waters and kidnap US citizens to work in their navy.

In the end we won the last major battle, and with the Napoleonic wars over, there was no more cause for war.

We stood up for ourselves versus a much more powerful opponent and showed that wouldn't allow ourselves to be treated like a colony or vassal. The exact same logic is used to say Vietnam beat China in 1979.

>How exactly does this hurt my argument?
I just told you.
>raq invaded a foreign country failed in their objectives and fucked up their own country in every conceivable way.
I understand but since I told you I don't know that war that well I can't draw any conclusions for myself I'm only listening to you, Afterall you told me I should use my head right and not listen to general consents? (Just a side note, flat earth fucks use that same argument). Going back to the war of 1812, the treaty didn't explicitly declare a winner. By you arguing with me now, you say that those men 200 years ago were wrong, I'm wrong, anyone who studies this war is wrong because the US didn't meet their initial war goals and reverting back to the stance that war goals cannot be adapted if they don't succeed.

I mean it was sort of about Canada. Your other points are also valid and true. Not to mention the raids by British supported Indians along the western frontier.
>In the end we won the last major battle
Wasn't the last major battle, New Orleans? I thought the US won that.

There's speculation that the whole thing was a pretext to invade Canada, but if you read the Wiki article they make it sound like that is an outdated view.

It definitely wasn't the overt reason, it is like people saying Iraq was just about oil.

based

No it isn't but it wasn't status quo antebellum anyway. Stop reading Wikipedia
Britian won that war
>invasion attempts repulsed

Part of Massachusetts was under foriegn military occupation for years after the war. Imagine having a foriegn natiin's military occupying your country for years after the war is over and still trying to pretend ot was a draw
>UK wanted the colonies back
Lolno, they just wanted America to stop trying to annex Canada. That was a victory

>stop reading Wikipedia
>stop telling me the one moment of glory in my country wasn't really about my country at all

>Britian won that war
no we already established this
>Part of Massachusetts was under foriegn military occupation for years after the war. Imagine having a foriegn natiin's military occupying your country for years after the war is over and still trying to pretend ot was a draw
????????????????????????????????????
>lolno, they just wanted America to stop trying to annex Canada. That was a victory
I never said that was the reason only a possible reason. I don't know if those officers true intentions for skirmishing into the US. Also if that was true then why didn't they just stop and sat on your dumb border and wait for the US to force a treaty but instead they invaded the US back and tried multiple times?

I don't know what this post means

America's one moment of glory was losing an early 19th century war they declared on Britain for opportunistic reasons?

>reducing the war to simplicity because it fits your narrative
Did Canadians inherent their arrogance from the Brits or what?

Your moment of glory. Canadians care way more about this war than we do. Maybe reading the Wikipedia article will improve your reading comprehension. You'd at least learn what the war was really about.

based