ITT: People that never lost wars

...

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_the_United_States
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cisplatine_War
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_Brazil
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_Argentina
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_Uruguay
journal.forces.gc.ca/vo8/no3/moffat-eng.asp
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Tonkin_Resolution.
merriam-webster.com/dictionary/war
dictionary.com/browse/war
es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discusión:Guerra_del_Brasil#Guerra_de_ediciones
es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discusión:Guerra_del_Brasil)
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_1812#Memory_and_historiography
es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convención_Preliminar_de_Paz_(1828)#Consecuencias.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cisplatine_War#Result
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

THE NEXT 300 POSTS BELONG TO AMERICA

>never lose a war
>still end up as brazil

You lost to yourself, my dude.

>Iraq
>Afghanistan
>Vietnam

...

All of those places are now filled with freedom and democracy.

all wins. the united states army has never lost a war thats why we salute correctly like men :^)

And French oil companies.

i know that feelio

>Red Cloud's War
>Russian Civil War
>Bay of Pigs Invasion
>Vietnam War
4 defeats out of 106 (3.77%) is very impressive though. 92 victories i.e. 86.79%

>Red Cloud's War in case no one heard of this shit before
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_the_United_States

You did lose a war you fucking retard
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cisplatine_War

>dien bien fu
>french jews running scarred
>call eisenhower and ask him to salve all problems with nuke
>no
AHAHAHAHAHA

>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cisplatine_War
stalemate
>The stalemate in the Cisplatine War was caused by the inability of the Argentine and Uruguayan land forces to capture major cities in Uruguay and Brazil,[6] the severe economic consequences imposed by the Brazilian blockade of Buenos Aires,[7] and the lack of manpower for a full-scale Brazilian land offensive against Argentine forces. There was also increasing public pressure in Brazil to end the war. All of this motivated the interest on both sides for a peaceful solution.

>Given the high cost of the war for both sides and the burdens it imposed on trade between the United Provinces and the United Kingdom, the latter pressed the two belligerent parties to engage in peace negotiations in Rio de Janeiro. Under British and French mediation, the United Provinces of Río de la Plata and the Empire of Brazil signed the 1828 Treaty of Montevideo, which acknowledged the independence of the Cisplatina under the name Eastern Republic of Uruguay.

>The treaty also granted Brazil sovereignty over the eastern section of the former Eastern Jesuit Missions and, most importantly, guaranteed free navigation of the Río de la Plata, a central national security issue for the Brazilians, but also an issue of great interest to the United Kingdom.
Neutral english wiki confirms:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_Brazil
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_Argentina
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_Uruguay

none of those seem to be wars my dude XD tryu harder uneducated faggot even preschoolers have read bury my heart at wounded knee. red cloud's autism over roads was neither a war nor even a battle. buy your logic your country has lost every battle with drug/gangs ever. kys autist :^)

The one case where winning is actually losing

The russian civil war and Vietnam weren't wars?
And it's wikipedias logic btw, you should change it there

> the entire empire of brazil vs 3 argentine provinces
>results brazil's navy is sunk, argentina's armies roam deep into brbr and brazil is forced to give up uruguay
>"We won"
Wat

none of them were ever declared by congress so legally no. Vietnam was armed intervention and military aid to protect the sovereignty of south Vietnam. the Russian civil war was also an undeclared intervention. also american army only held murmansk with bongs then pulled out before winter they didn't fight shit but weather

Well I don't think historians care about it being a legal or illegal law. Does any historian not consider Vietnam a war?

>conquering farmland
>not understanding what "stalemate" means
see

No one wins in war except the Rothschilds.

The army doesn't nor do any of their historians, they still go by the legal definition regardless of your fee fee's that will never go away. the instant LBJ stated we would intervene militarily in south east asia to counter any military aggression it became something outside of the untied states alone. I should also add that the vietnam war ended with the paris peace accords negotiated by the kiss. there was a ceasefire declared and we pulled out entirely. then 2 years later the north broke treaty and invaded, but by then the dems were in power again and didn't care. please try getting better educated than an american highschooler before arguing like an autistic child my dude :^)

Weekend War lads

Literally one loss.

>Sent a few thousand guys to Vladivostok.
>Spend whole time hanging out trying not to be bored.
>Decide to set up a bank branch, cause why not.
>A small group of 55 goes to Omsk to help with administrative work.
>Only 'action' was at a town nearby. Sent to liberate it from Bolsheviks in the area.
>Arrive at town to find Bolsheviks had already left.
>In country for less than 9 months.
>Counts as a loss?

I'm gonna go with undefeated.

journal.forces.gc.ca/vo8/no3/moffat-eng.asp

None of those opponents were ever relevant.

That's like bragging about being the champion of the retard division.

Your entire country was a farmland and the one conquered was the most fertile and strategically important you had.
You lost mate, you dont give up an entire province after being raped and claim victory.
Is this another br delusion like WE WUZ PLANE INVENTORS

Give me one historian who thinks the Vietnam War was not a war, same for the Russian Civil War. Btw, what is en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Tonkin_Resolution.

p.s.: By that logic a large number of wars are not "real wars", for not being legally declared, or being started by non-state actors with no recognition, or being waged while pretending they're not. Literally googling "definition of war" would show it to you merriam-webster.com/dictionary/war dictionary.com/browse/war . It doesn't matter if something is "declared to be a war" for it to be one (or we . The state cannot define reality through legislation only. That's like saying a man declared to be a woman by gov turns magically into a woman.

p.p.s.: Following that logic the world only saw these wars since 1945: Arab-Israeli, Suez Crisis, Six-Day, of Attrition, Yom Kippur, Ogaden, Iran-Iraq, Falklands, invasion of Panama, Eritrean-Ethiopian, Chadian Civil, Djiboutian-Eritrean (2008), Russo-Georgian, Heglig, Sinai Insurgency

SPBP

Argentina wanted to annex Uruguay, Brazil wanted to keep it. Argentina got broke by Brazil's blockade and couldn't fight more, Brazil was too far away to fight properly, so both signed a treaty heavily in favor of Brazil. It is counted as a stalemate everywhere outside of Argentina (and maybe Uruguay and other places influenced by it). Not quite a victory eh?
Even spanish wiki doesn't call it defeat es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discusión:Guerra_del_Brasil#Guerra_de_ediciones (good points here btw es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discusión:Guerra_del_Brasil)

Btw there are literally no relevant cities in Brazil's border next to Uruguay or Paraguay, not then not today, they're literally farms with some small cities around. The only people who think Argentina "won it" are the ones who think the Falklands are called Malvinas

Did you know many americans considered 1812 to be a victory of theirs in the past?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_1812#Memory_and_historiography

> heavily in favor of Brazil
hahahah oh wow you lost an entire province and any claim you could have on the plate river
>Argentina got broke by Brazil's blockade and couldn't fight more
Not true the armies were marching towards the centre of your country when the peace was signed
The only reason you didn't lose your entire south is because the UK forced both countries to stop fighting, you didn't win shit you nationalistic fuck.

If Argentina had won Uruguay would be part of it. I'm not a nationalist either, I'm telling the internationally accepted version, I never said Brazil won, I said it was a stalemate. The peace treaty is not what a defeated country gets. And Uruguay was a region annexed by Portugal only some years before, with a completely different culture that didn't belong in Brazil any way, but a stalemate with a reasonable peace treaty (misiones orientales, free navegation, etc) is not defeat, but stalemate. Both the spanish and english articles (didn't even read the portuguese ones) recognize this. Only nationalist historiography in Argentina (and Uruguay, where some see it as an independence war) sees it as a clearcut victory instead of a compromise. Even the guys on the talk section saw it.

If anyone won it it was Uruguay, and even then they had people meddling in their affairs and civil wars for years to come es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convención_Preliminar_de_Paz_(1828)#Consecuencias. The two belligerents wanted Uruguay, none got it.

Btw nationalist brazilians don't usually care about this war, and focus on the ones against Rosas and (sometimes) the paraguayan one, and internal problems from the 30s on

See this discussion also en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cisplatine_War#Result

bump

> Lost wars
> Millions of mudslimes dead and their oil stolen.

Pick one.