Be American

forgot
>everyone claps

>be American
>get butthurts
>tip OP

Attached: 1286375984753.jpg (721x582, 80K)

>dutch

Attached: 1537058155842.png (202x206, 46K)

Attached: germany.png (1280x768, 398K)

>when you are dutch

Attached: d2155606-b341-48b1-b61f-82ad9a68a5aa.png (800x1280, 172K)

very nice

At least we fight (and never lose) faggot.

Attached: bang.png (800x621, 242K)

>Vietnam
Nigger, this is why nobody likes us.

Cowboy bebop?

Attached: 899449944f603894238f814c887047e1.jpg (342x334, 30K)

Attached: reddit.jpg (396x382, 41K)

>be america
>lose just one war in history
>can't recover

Attached: 1526642348337.png (600x580, 568K)

The butthurt is real

Attached: 1532371677826s.jpg (228x250, 10K)

we didn't lose 'Nam libtard, that's just commie propaganda

we certainly didn't win in nam

Not true, we also lost the war of 1812. And no one won the civil war.

The U.S has technically lost most of the wars it's ever been in.

>objective was to contain the enemy
>kept enemy back throughtout whole war
>pull out troops because unpopular war, but not before getting a ceasefire with enemy
>war goal reached
>enemy breaks ceasefire and breaks through the lines when we leave
>we're not there, not our problem anymore
>inb4 hurr durr you said you would come back
we decided not to and rather let the gookniggers kill themselves, we didn't lose shit leaf

Attached: harambes in heaven.jpg (960x663, 37K)

>40 years later
>can't get over it

Attached: 1526754461319.png (239x211, 13K)

>be American
>shitpost like an imperialist dumb cunt
>foreigners go in a seething rage

Attached: 1471517592716.jpg (800x800, 359K)

take off your proxies or otherwise return to Canada/Mexico
War of 1812 resulted in status quo ante bellum. nobody won, nobody lost
>a fucking leaf

Attached: Chilean-military-guarding-prisoners-at-the-National-Stadium-after-the-1973-coup.-Photo-by-Marcelo-Mo (600x391, 142K)

>Objective was to prevent the spread of communism in Vietnam.
>Was unable to hold key strategic locations and ended up causing more despotic instability in the region.
>NV ended up breaking the treaty, the U.S was too cucked to respond.
>Wargoal, by the logic in the former, was therefore not reached.
>Communism spread throughout SE asia anyway.

Yeah no, that wasn't a victory, nor was it a armistice. It was a full political and military display of failure on the part of the U.S. The fact it was the first "TV" war made it even more laughable.

Attached: england yes.jpg (778x584, 65K)

You barely understand war theory,
The Americans invaded Canada in an opportunistic bid to annex it, and had every invasion repelled. They thought the British couldn't wage war against Napoleon and the US simultaneously, thus concluding the conquest would be easy.
It is no coincidence that the Americans declared war 6 days before the Grand Armée marched into Russia.

British impressment of British deserters was a vital wartime practice to ensure the Royal Navy had the manpower to wage war against Napoleon, a practice they could not and did not surrender. By British law, the deserters owed service to the Crown, and could be forced into service if necessary. Nationality was not transferable in the UK, thus the Americans’ pleas that the sailors were American were dismissed. Impressment ended once Napoleon was defeated. It is not mentioned in the Treaty of Ghent.
Contary to the seemingly prevalent belief, the US lost the naval war. The Royal Navy established naval domination by employing an economic blockade the Americans were unable to break. US warships spent most of the war bottled up in ports, escaping only during ideal weather.

Ship-on-ship victories do not equal strategic effect. USS Constitution’s naval victories were all against smaller, weaker British ships—as were all of the US Navy’s ship-on-ship victories. It's telling that the 3 essentially equal ship-on-ship engagements—Chesapeake–Shannon, Essex–Phoebe, President–Endymion—were all won by the British.
Having your warships trapped in ports for the majority of war, failing to defeat your enemie’s core naval strategy, and failing to undermine your enemie’s naval imperium along your coast is not a naval victory. Using ship-on-ship engagements as the metric of victory dismisses the bigger, more significant picture.

You're a little harsh there d00d

Status quo ante bellum means that the defender won and the attacker lost. The US was the attacker and Britain/Canada was the defender.

cont
Theodore Roosevelt observed that the British blockade: " inflicted a direct material loss to the American people a hundredfold greater than the entire American Navy was able to inflict on Great Britain from the beginning of the war to the end… The very fact that the workings of the blockade were ceaseless and almost universal makes it difficult to realise their importance."
The American privateers, which in 1812 were the US’s “inexpensive but influential second navy” and by 1813 “the Republic’s only maritime force,” also failed in their objective. They captured numerous British merchant ships and made handsome profit, but successful predation does not equal strategic effect. Captain Alfred Thayer Mahan, USN, argued this cogently
Tight control of coastal waters, blockading key ports, convoys, and the maintenance of economic insurance rates ensured the ships’ mobility, and retained the confidence of the commercial community. American privateers steadily shifted ever further from their home ports, ending up as far as Canton.

The British never intended to annex American land; to do so whilst warring against Napoleon would be senseless. The British forces that invaded the US and torched Washington were expeditionary forces dispatched in a bid to end the war sooner and exact revenge on the Americans for invading Canada. A force of less than 5,000 men is too small a one for conquest. Despite this, however, the Battle of Baltimore and New Orleans have been mythologized and subsumed by US folklore, propagating the false belief that the battles had a strategic effect on the war.
The Native American raids on American settlements were not incited by the British. A few second-hand muskets of British manufacture does not amount to arming and motivating the Native Americans; they needed no motivation to defend their home and culture from American expansionism. The raids merely gave President Madison another excuse to vilify the British.

last post:
The British were indeed unable to create a buffer state for the Native Americans, but for the British this was a trivial aim relative to their other objectives. The Americans drew some comfort from trifling exchanges over the Canadian frontier.
Territorial gain is not the mark of victory in war. War is about objectives, and if said objectives aren't achieved, the war is lost. The Americans failed to annex Canada, failed to end impressment, failed to sufficiently damage British commerce, failed to abrogate British maritime belligerent rights, and ended the war functionally bankrupt. The British, per contra, succeeded in achieving its core war aims by defending Canada, defending commerce, retaining the right to impress British deserters, and upholding British maritime belligerent rights, only failing in their comparatively minor goal of creating an Indian buffer state. Moreover, the claim that the US gained respect from Britain and other European states seems affected; Europe was preoccupied with the future of Europe. The War of 1812–14 was a sideshow.

You should just have written that Status quo ante bellum means that the defender won and the attacker lost. This is too high effort for bant

Something you should know about American education and it was something I didn't know until I majored in history: we never learn the intimate details about the political climate, or the actual historical facts about the U.S. Most of the Americans you see posting on this site are actually 100% ignorant of any of the topics they discuss concerning their own country which is sad. If I can even educate one person it'll be a victory. I wrote a whole thesis about the war of 1812 so I figured why not.

Hmm, yes interesting. Swedish history is better i guess, but we have essentially no political or military history at all either, only other types of history.

See now that's interesting: why do you think this is? Why isn't the US schooling system teaching this? because if it is really like what you describe, then it is pretty much unique to your country to gloss over such a large portion of their own history, especially considering how short it is in actuality

Swedish history can essentially be considered the span of the entire Scandinavian continent, which is rich and goes back thousands of years. It's actually very interesting I've been very inclined to do a little bit of reading on Nordic culture/mythology for a while now but I can't bring myself to on top of all the other shit I have to do.

I honestly think because this country glorifies patriotism in it's education system way too much. This is the same country that forces its students to stand and pledge allegiance to the flag every day. Also funding for public education is pitiable but I think that's a more minor issue. I had a great history teacher in highschool but I feel as if I were somewhat lucky in that regard.

Weird. I though pledging allegiance was only something that would be done in private schools r religious schools. Does it happen in every public school as well?

Every one. In a lot of states it's a requirement. Some schools will at least let you not place your hand over your heart when you say it but I'm pretty sure you have to stand at least. At least I did when I was in school.

"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible with liberty and justice for all."
Such a silly little phrase seeing as none of it is at all true in modern society.

I went to public school in WA, which is pretty liberal, and we had to do it. I'm in my late 20s now, so idk if they still do it. When I was in high school, you didn't have to say it, but at least stand. No one really gave it much thought at the time. Just my own experience.

This is honestly insane.
The only time I remember doing something vaguely similar was in Uni, when we sang the national anthem and had a minute of silence after the Paris attacks in 2015, and that was about it. But never once have I done such crazy things as chanting a mantra in front of my flag. And yet I feel just as patriotic and proud of my country as many americans would.
But what is even more baffling is: why not teach these wars in the first place? Wars are a big part of the national identity of a country. Why not teach 1896-98? Or even, I dunno 1812-1814 in a positive light? This is just dumb.

>be american
>lay with the knee on football stadium
>get deported by Mr. Trumpet

Oh don't get me wrong we learn about the war. We just either don't get the real facts of the war or get convoluted "half truths"

I see, it makes more sense then. Every country does that to a certain extent. But from my personal experience, it seems to be fairly prevalent in the US, almost as if they were too scared to let people know the truth, even though the US has a fairly good record in general when it comes to waging wars.

that image is wrong
if you push the one light year long rod one end it would take one light year for the other end to move

>being new
Oh I envy you sometimes

this image wrong again OMG
who ever made clearly had no idea how physics work

Not really. The U.S has never really achieved the majority of it's war goals in any of it's conflicts. Not even counting the fact that we joined in late in both the second world war and the first world war.

But war has almost always been a plus to the US. This is something that could objectively be applauded.