America hasn't lost a war since the war of 1812
>>538771171>America hasn't lost a war since the war of 1812We didn't win the Vietnam war. If we had won, South Vietnam would still exist today.
>>538771216Our K/D ratio is over 20:1
>>538771266>Our K/D ratio is over 20:1And yet you still cry about how horrible it was. Mutts have yet to learn that deaths don't equate to objective goals. Such is the way of the goy
>>538771171>We won VietnamCoolWhat did we get for winning?
>>538771171This is the real life not CoD
>>538771266So Germans won against Soviets?
>>538771266Americans learned war from the jews, which is why they consider defeats victories. >we killed more civilians>we killed more children >we hecking won objectives be damned
>>538771171It lost the most important war, the civil war.The bankers won in 1812 and the bankers won in 1865.
>>538771266if you kill your adversary, you lose
>>538771171Robert McNamara confessed the war was wrong.50,000 Chads killed for nothing.Oh say can you see........
>>538771266>my calculator says here that we we won
>>538771567We also lost WW2. We fought the wrong enemy.
>>538771464as the saying goes>with jews you lose
>>538771171America has never been in a war.
>>538771622the biggest shame is that they killed Patton for realising that
>>538771171What about Afghanistan? And this psyopp of an Iran war?
>>538771266>Our K/D ratio is over 20:1when your team is busy playing deathmatch, but the objective is capture the flag...
>>538771171>war is determined by the number of deaths you causeThis isn't Call of Duty
>>538771359>What did we get for winning?The destruction of the South Virtnam by North Vietnam, 58K dead Americans, national humiliation, and stagflation.
Iranian sissies can only dream to reach such a high score
>>538771171>muh K:D ratio!Real life is not cowadoody you fat retarded burgermutt.
>>538771622We won WWII, that’s not debatable. Now whether or not U.S. winning was a good thing, that is debatable.
>>538771671conflicts
>>538771667And the arrogance and narcissism that was fueled by the schlubs thinking we actually won.
>>538771216>American victories don't count unless they last literally foreverSouth Vietnam was still there when we handed responsibility over to arvn
>>538771734can we say Burma is a lost war? Kicked out the only democracy on mainland Asia lol
>>538771759Fine. But we unleashed a far worse enemy that has controlled us for 60 years.So what the fuck did we win?
>>538771417Real life is quite literally cod. If you kill 140 afghanis for every american soldier. America won.
>>538771266>Our K/D ratio is over 20:1So? Nigger thugs murder other races probably 100:1, but they're still niggers and the bottom rung of society regardless.
>>538771171>AfghanistanYou lost a war less than 5 years ago.
>>538771789>American victories don't count unless they last literally foreverIf our puppet regime instantly collapses like a house of cards the moment we pull out then the entire effort was pointless and we lost, correct.Both Vietnam and Afghanistan (arguably Iraq also) were also pointless wars which we lost. How many we killed doesn't negate the fact. This is about real world geo-politics, not a game of Team Deathmatch in Call of Duty.
>>538771878>So what the fuck did we win?>Unquestioned destruction, occupation, and subjugation of enemy states (which arguably continues to the present day)>unquestioned unipolar military superiority for four years>superpower status to the present day>USD becomes global reserve currency>turning allied nations into debtor states for decadesAnd many more. That said, I don’t think it was worth it.
>>538771216Tactically/operationally, yes, we burned the shit out of them. All tactical engagements and battles were won by us. We are said to have lost strategically, because we couldn't just sit their and prop up the Saigon regime until the end of time, so we had to leave. Same as with afghanistan, except we never took the northern capital of hanoi. Because we didn't try to occupy it.We easily routed the taliban, and took the capital city of kabul, and regime changed the taliban governance, within a month, in Nov 2001, achieving tactical victory over them. And we won every major battle. The taliban never took the capital by force. We are said to have lost because we didn't make the puppet government stick.
>>538771171
>>538771171>what are objectives
>>538771216>Vietnam won the warYeah? If "Winning" means your country gets so ass pumped full of Agent Orange, that three generations of your children end up born without arms, eyes, and legs, and you have to open up millions of dollars worth of birth defect and care clinics to take care of the mutated nuggets.Then yeah, sure, let Vietnam be the "winners" then, I guess.
>>538771171One more such victory and we are lost
>>538771171Redpill me on Vietnam
>>538771359We won. Nobody said we got a bunch of stuff. We tactically/operationally won. >>>538771464>If you kill your enemy, you loseOK, yeah, sure. Also, start listing the really compassionate wars of history. Wars are brutal. >>538772146Nope. Not in the traditional sense of the word. See here>>538772508The taliban got steam rolled, and regime changed in one month. Their capital city was taken, and they never took it back by force.The US "loses", because we are doing something that no other military ever even tries to do, namely, establish logistics that include transporting everything to the other side of the world, killing a good % of the population, and then trying to set up unpopular governments, that just fold the moment we leave. Nobody has ever tactically/operationally beat us. Get real if you think that taliban could beat us in actual warfare. They "won", because they live in afghanistan, and we don't, and we don't colonize the places we blow up any more, and stay there.
>>538771910Who is in power in Afghanistan?
>>538771171Iran 2026
>>538772586Ask russia about their success at regime change of kiev, which was an objective of the 3 day SMO. If you hold the US to the standard of complete success with every objective, be sure to apply the standard everywhere. They haven't achieved ANY of their strategic objectives. And they won't.So People can claim strategic loses for the US, but they can't claim loses on the other two levels, tactical/operational.
>>538771171What did we win?
>>538771171It was civil war at Vietnam and you were on Southern side.....and you fucker counted both sides deaths in your "victory". Typical from mutt.
comparing kill counts doesn't mean anything unless you consider your people equal
>>538771266This is one of those times where I'm seriously struggling to distinguish bait from genuine retardation.
>>538773252>>538771171addition....2/3 of deaths were civilians who just were wrong place at wrong time....are you proud about it?
>>538773008So you failed to accomplish the tasks you set out to accomplish, is what you're saying.
>>538773062The taliban. We easily defeated them and regime changed them. They never tactically/operationally beat us. Get fucking real. see here>>538773008They never took back the city by force. It would be as if russia steam rolled Ukraine, and took Kyiv, and regime changed zelinsky, owned the city for 20 years. Then hung around and blew the ukrainians up with close air support any time they got uppity, and then split, and then zelinsky slithered back into kiev and took over. Technically, ok, yes, that's a victory for Ukraine, but not in a victory like people usually think of, such as ww2 or something. Where it's a real, peer/near peer conflict, and one side clearly tactically/operationally/strategically wins.
>>538771171>but Hillary won the popular vote!
>>538771171>>538771266You conveniently left out the amount of dead ARVN and other allied nations casulties. The ratio then becomes at most a 2 to 1 ratio.That makes your K/D ratio a lot worse for a supposed superpower fighting against mere rice-farmers.
>>538771216Didn't we leave because Vietnam was ready to turn on Cambodia, China, and the Soviet Union, though? The alternative was to meatgrind hundreds of thousands of Cambodian, Chinese, and Soviet soldiers for another ten years. By leaving, Vietnam ended up killing Khmer Rouge and then repelling a Chinkoid invasion on our behalf.
>>538773574I mean, this is basically saying Taliban won because we only occupied their country for twenty years instead of, I guess, forever.
>>538773567This is literally what happened with the Soviet-afghan war, the Soviets lost significantly less than we did in Vietnam and killed two million afghans while holding the major cities and unlike Vietnam they just drove away and their puppet held it until the USSR collapsed. It’s still absolutely a Soviet loss
>>538771171Considering we literally hand delivered Afghanistan back to the Taliban no exaggeration or spin id chalk that up to a fucking L. And I don’t mean it was the sad result of our pull out, no we negotiated with them directly and said “yup you win we are leaving Congratz bye”. We achieved nothing in that war other than ballooned national debt and military contractor paychecks.
>>538771171>"we beat you in the war" the amerimutt says to the communist government of vietnamel em ay oh
>>538773993We left Vietnam because our soldiers started fragging all their officers and we were staring down a total mutiny if we kept going any further.
>>538771171So what did the USA win?Who's paying you to be this much of a moron? Surely you aren't doing it for free?
>>538771171The American conservative “patriot” worldview is so tragically brittle and cursed that they can’t accept any complaint or shoulder any complex feelings around the simple facts of history. America lost some wars. I can still love my country knowing this, but clearly yall can’t and have to delude yourselves into pretending we are invincible super duper warriors sent by god or your entire full bullshit story falls apart.
>>538772211>This is about real world geo-politics, not a game of Team Deathmatch in Call of Duty.Bro. Vietnam is lousy with McDonald's, Iraq is still very much in our sphere, and the taliban traded in their IEDs for 9 to 5s.If you want to talk global influence you'd have a better case arguing we lost Europe.Seriously, why do you tards keep claiming we lost Iraq? It's never been more ours.
>>538773524Yes. We lost strategically, if you put the standard at having to achieve every strategic goal you set out for. As stated here, by me>>538772508>We are said to have lost because we didn't make the puppet government stick.Just as russia is fated to lose, because they will accomplish none of their stated strategic goals, such as regime changing kiev.But we never lost in terms of the taliban actually beat us in warfare. That's what most dumbasses think when they look at the situation. As stated here>>538773008>They "won", because they live in afghanistan, and we don't, and we don't colonize the places we blow up any more, and stay there.If the US wanted to, we could still be chilling there in their capital city, and there's not a damn thing the could have done about it. What could they do? It was a GENERALLY low intensity counter insurgency. That's it. It wasn't some near peer war, where they routed the US tactically/operationally or something. Here. This is what happened if the taliban was doing too well.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Io96sA63Wohttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PeqZPjuLtlwhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nHbKl2YJLRQThe US/coalition won all major battles, such as anaconda and Operation MoshtarakThe taliban had success in a small amount of more high intensity battles/ambushes>Battle of Wanat>Battle of Kamdesh>Operation Red WingsThey were repelled successfully in the first two, and the third was rectified in Operation Whalers.The RUSSIA afghan war was more high intensity.
>>538772621The dumbest thing about Agent Orange will always be that it was just an effective herbicide used to kill of vegetation that Vietcong were hiding in and farmland. If used as the manufactures suggested then the odds of it having any long-term negative effects were near zero.The military higher ups, ever the dipshits, decided to use concentrations of it TWENTY TIMES stronger than the makers advised and were met with sheer disbelief at how retarded that was by the makers. To let you know how fucking insane this is, there were roughly 400,000 Vietnamese deaths attributed directly to Agent Orange exposure (and way more secondary exposure problems), but, the shit was so toxic at the concentration used there were 300,000 US military deaths directly linked to Agent Orange exposure. To put that into perspective, there was around 58,000 US soldier combat deaths, so the USA killed 5 times their soldiers than the Vietcong did which is some Chinese battle record shit.
>>538771171americans were bankrupt and rationing gas and food because they were losing to rice farmers so badly and the jews were stealing all of their money
>>538773008So you tactically/operationally spent billions, killed 58k americans, killed a lot more foreigners whose relatives now hate you and want to kill you. Not to mention, the average american got nothing for it.Conclusion: I won the Vietnam war. Got everything I wanted.
>>538774986The USA never rationed gas or food on the home front during the Vietnam war. There was effectively zero changes to overall QoL to people living in the USA during that entire war (excluding draft related disruptions and Ma and Pa civilian having to plant their sons.)
>>538771171the purpose of war is to achieve your goals. K:D is nice, but doesnt decide the winner. did russia lose ww2?
>>538775326>Vietnamese hate AmericansNot from my experience. Been there a few times. The North had more animosity but even then it was barely noticeable. You got to remember, a stupid amount of countries have tried to take over Vietnam throughout its history. Disease, heat, thick jungle, and contaminated water coupled with guerilla ambush tactics being the modus operandi since forever has made Vietnam a REAL BITCH for anybody to take over successfully. China took it over by openly pumping money into every governmental representative though.
>>538774228The soviet afghan war was way more high intensity, more often. Way more brutal. And way the hell more afghanis died, especially civilians. But yeah, they took the capital city as well. The mujahadeen never took it back by force. The mujahadeen actually won some battles vs the soviets, though. These expeditionary wars are not easy to win. It's not like a situation such as with Russia and Ukraine, where russia is contiguous with Ukraine. And logistics involve just rolling across the border, or floating a few miles. The US has to actually logistically transport all materiel to the other side of the world. At least russia had a land bridge to iran, with contiguous soviet republics as well.The point being, it's retarded when people are like>the US can beat x, y, z, they can't even beat the talibanIt misunderstands what happened. Same with Iran, just not as extreme of an asymmetry. Iran has done very little damage to US materiel/personnel compared to vice versa. IMMENSELY less damage. When you actually closely monitor the targeting and successful strikes, it's not remotely close. Plus, the fact that we are literally banning them from using their own ports, it's really absurd to say they are winning. How, because they are disrupting commercial shipping. Please. And then, when you consider what iran has done to the US homeland, which is absolutely nothing, compared to what we have done to their shit, it's silly to say the US is losing tactically/operationally.
>>538771171https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z07v-ttoJZs
>>538771171Rome never “lost” a war either. Still fell. We’re an enormous empire used by special interests for their ends. The past century has been nothing but wars we shouldn’t have been in that profited us nothing.
>>538771266That doesn’t matter. Pound for pound doesn’t matter when you still lose. The nazis had an insane positive K/D against the Soviets. Something like 12:1. It doesn’t matter because there were more Soviets and they were overwhelmed anyway.
>>538773008You're genuinely an idiot who shouldn't involve himself in these kinds of discussions because you don't understand even slightly the shit you're talking aboutThe US does not "lose because it builds logistics"Every military builds logistics, you cannot invade anywhere or fight anywhere without doing that. This isn't something special only America does.You have no fucking idea what you are even talking about.
>>538771171America didn't lose 1812 either. >b-but they burned le heckin White HouseNot how you lose a war. Using that logic America already won in Iran America lost nothing in 1812
>>538771266You playin TDM while the rest of us are playing conquest
>>538771171>1812>won>?more proof that mutts are delusional and propagandised just as much as the chinks.
>>538773239the Vietname War caused huge changes in American Culture it gave us a lot of movments. >feminist movment>faggot movment>drug use movment>hippie movment>fuck the troops movment>fuck wipipo movment
>>538771171I wanted to make a comparison> that's like saying that you "won" by sending your kid to school to shoot kids until he gets murdered for a cause you fail to achieve and then I remembered I'm talking to an american and everything made sense
>>538771359Coca-Cola sold in Hanoi, Nike shoes made for pennies by them and a government that hates the shit out of China.Autistic people fail to see the big picture. They just focus on irrelevant noise like battles and tank transmissions.
>>538771216Just a thread full of cope. The US went to war in Vietnam to prevent South Vietnam from falling into communismhttps://youtube.com/shorts/P-o28gMdyDo?is=YYq7GG902qEVx0vKAnd the US ultimately failed in its goal. Everything else is just pure copium.
While the US lost Vietnam it was heavily stacked against the Americans. The Soviet Union and China supported the North Vietnamese a lot. Not just with equipment but training too and thousands of soldiers from these countries were actively stationed inside North Vietnam. the US faced the risk of triggering another Korean War but way worse so could never really invade the North. There are also reports of direct engagements between American and Russian troops on the ground though this was pretty rare.Additionally the North Vietnamese had a pretty decent regular army due to the Russians and Chinese building them up. Most of the fighting was done by them. The whole "muh rice farmers" meme discredits the competence of the regular army.
>>538771266nice, looks like we won WW2 after all.thanks for the coping 101 course.omaha beach best day of my life
>>538778520this
>>538771464That actually makes a lot of sense
>>538771622Yes
>>538771266K/D ratio is such a brainlet argument. Strategically we lost that war as we didn't accomplish the objectives that were set out for starting that war. We would have been better off not participating in it
>>538771266nigger thinks we're in call of duty
>>538771266Jewish K/D against white goyim is 1,000+ / 1 if we account for all of history
>>538771171So you're saying Russia lost the war against Finland?
>>538777904That didnt happen as a result of US involvement in the Vietnam War, moron.
there's been a massive Eglin psy op lately to convince Americans all the costly quagmires that just resulted in servicemen dying, millions of civilian deaths and weapon/chemical manufacturers very wealthy were a good thing. for anyone other than the traitors in government making money on blood.
>>538772508>we burned the shit out of themAnd it was all for nothing. Doesn't benefit America's geo-political interests, and certainly doesn't benefit American taxpayers in any way. Okay, we killed a lot of people? No one disputes that. But this costs American taxpayers, and it also came at the cost of all those servicemen on our own side who were injured or killed to do it. Do you think telling some crippled Vietnam veteran that they had a higher k/d ratio is going to mean anything to them? A lot of them were conscripted back then because very few agreed with the premise of the war even then, and certainly far fewer now since we got nothing from it. Killing people doesn't gain us anything. It just puts more blood on our hands and makes us more hated. That's all your higher k/d ratio accomplished. Just like when Trump bombed Iranian school children in cold blood.
>>538772621>we won because we committed war crimes against civiliansOkay you hurt women, children, etc. Are you proud of this? Does doing that make you feel like a big man because you did fucked up evil things to innocent people?
>>538774923>retardedPossibly, but I think its more likely that they were just pure evil and didn't give a fuck. Its not like they were dropping it on themselves. When has any of these warmongering neocon types ever shown even the tiniest shred of empathy or remorse? Remember, Madeline Albright said it was "worth it" when someone brought up the topic of 500,000 Iraqi children that were killed by the sanctions. That's the sort of evil behind all this, anon. They're not retarded. They know what they're doing is wrong, but they do it anyway because they're evil.
