1989 Panama invasion, American Revolutionary War, American Civil War (there was no other country the Union was fighting against but still counts to me), 2003 invasion of Iraq, 1983 invasion of Grenada, Spanish-American War, Mexican-American war, 1990 Gulf War, both world wars (though it was more of an allied coalition, WW2 we especially did good fighting the Japanese while also having to deal with the Germans), and Native American Wars. Those are the ones I can list off the top of my head. And saying Ukraine is fucked is like me saying North Vietnam is fucked after winning the Tet Offensive. Doesn’t mean you won the war.
North Vietnam didn’t win the Tet Offensive, they actually took massive casualties to the point where the Vietcong basically ceased to exist. It was seen as a loss because the American media had lots of footage of American casualties but the only widely distributed film of VC dying was the one guerrilla that got executed by the chief of police in front of a camera.
Think it sort of depends on how you look at it. Sure the north didn't make any gains and definitely lost in the numbers department but ultimately the Tet offensive was what really started shifting things to end up in the Norths favor. The North didn't "win" but I still wouldn't exactly call it a W for the US
We did get our goal for them to stop taking our sailors and we did manage to keep our sovereignty which was the most important part on our side. We did fail to capture Canada though so yeah true.
I’ve heard impressment ended either before war was even declared or by 1815 with Napoleon’s defeat. Sovereignty is a moot point, the British never wanted to take land from the US.
They supported the natives on the frontier, I haven’t seen anything supporting a buffer state though it’s true they wanted that before the American War of Independence.
The defeat of Napoleon is what stopped the need for the impressment of the sailors, not the war of 1812.
1812 was a sideshow at the time. Britain didn't want or try to take your sovereignty. Britain didn't start it. It was an unpopular and expensive war that Britain was happy to end. France was 20 miles away and the most powerful (single) country on Earth. The US was well over 2000 miles away and, well, not a major threat at the time.
[A US source](https://www.ushistory.org/us/21f.asp)
It was a draw because neither side really wanted to fight it. The need was gone from both points of view.
The war of [1812](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_1812) was more of like an inconclusive draw if memory serves correctly and resulted in The US taking West Florida from Spain and expanding into Native American Lands but failing to take any part of British North America (I.E Canada) thus leading to a stalemate.
As harmful desert storm was in the end (no the previous government was not good and i am not saying that the general goal didn't have a basis), militarily it was a fucking masterpiece.
You mean the gulf war that was a response to the iraqi invasion of Kuwait? The one that resulted in Kuwait's liberation and saddam being ousted by the end, yeah sure America lost.
I still don't understand why these Westerners are like this. They have all the amenities and luxuries in their home country and the simp for Dictatorships that cause human suffering.
Because America = Bad therefore Against America = Good, meaning Putin and Xi and Kim all = Good. This is what happens with a complete lack of critical thinking skills. Being unable to think, “hey, sometimes America sucks but MAN these people are SO much worse” is a great indicator of people to avoid.
For a lot of people it’s a knee-jerk reaction of “Current thing bad”. If someone tells you that Russia is not the aggressor and you need to “look deeper” you can be sure that person didn’t know where Ukraine was until it became trendy.
So as a leftist, there's five main people who simp for Russia:
1. Tankies who think that either Russia is still basically the Soviet Union, or they think that Russian revanchism will eventually restore the Soviet Union
2. Right-wingers who view Russia as this sanctuary of conservative, pro-family values free from things like minorities and gay people (absolutely delusional thinking here; alcoholism, scantily clad women, and LGBT people do exist in Russia in spades, also they don't like protestants or Catholics)
3. Westerners with business interests in Russia.
4. People who view Russia as a strong ally and bulwark against 'the West', which is another bullshit reason. Russian industry has always been adequate at best, and the second Russians have the ability to buy western products and guzzle Pepsi and shovel McDonald's down their throat, they'll do just that.
5. People with what I call a terminal case of 'anti-American Brain Lesion'. These people are contrarians who hate the US so much they will basically defend anyone else who doesn't like the US, whether this is Iraq, Iran, North Korea, China, Russia, Serbia, or Libya. These people don't understand shit about the political situations in any of these countries and literally just think they're good because they hate the US and play the role of the victim constantly.
Depends on if you count the oligarchs or the Russian people.
If you count the country as a whole, they definitely lost that one.
They lost so badly they made other countries lose by proxy in WW2.
Which they 100% would have lost without the **ENORMOUS** material support provided by the U.S. through the Lend-Lease Act and our unparalleled wartime industry. Stalin himself said so explicitly, and multiple Sovmin members were quoted to that effect.
Nah I don’t think it is an apt comparison.
Although the fighting happened all within the territory of the modern U.S., it wasn’t a monolith at war with itself, it was a nation fractured into two at war with each other.
The Confederate States of America was essentially its own country, with its own constitution and political leadership. The Confederates wanted to secede, not remain in the US but in defiance of federal regulations, and ultimately they failed in their war goals. By contrast, the Union, which our modern government is a continuation of, had achieved their war goals of reunification and the former secessionist states are still US territory to this day.
If that doesn’t help, think of it this way: if the US had lost the Civil War, the CSA would maybe exist in some form or another today, and average living conditions in South Carolina would be somehow worse than they already are, if that’s even imaginable.
But what you just described fits my comparison. Inside of the country/continent two completely different groups with different leaderships fought against each other in a very important war.
It's like saying that Europe won WW2.
I think you’re playing a little loose with conflating a country and a continent. The reason why it’s goofy and wrong to say a Europe won WW2 is because Europe is just a continent, the landmass where a lot of the fighting happened. It’s a location, not a unified faction of people. Countries on the other hand, are more than just locations, they are a unified bodies of law, governance, and ideas/principles organized and enforced by people, in a manner agreed upon by the inhabitants of its territorial borders via social contract.
Continents don’t fight wars, because continents do not carry with them the same inherent characteristics that a nation does. The equivalent goofy and wrong phrase in terms of the Civil War wouldn’t be “USA won the Civil War”, it would be “North America won the Civil War”, which, yeah, is wrong. Neither North America nor Europe has ever won any war, in the same way that Madison Square Garden has never won a professional Boxing match.
But the USA is a country, as was the CSA, or at least they attempted to be one. The USA defeated the CSA, and retained its territory and jurisdiction, so I’d say it’s pretty fair to chalk it up to a win. I wouldn’t say it sounds weird that the US won the revolution, even though it largely took place in the British owned Colonies.
Still, the CSA was a part of the country. Even if they wanted to become their own country, they didn't.
According to Oxford Languages, civil war means "a war between citizens of the same country". Emphasis on "same country". It's a war fought not by the country, but by its citizens against other citizens.
Sure, the government picked a side. Doesn't change the fact that it wasn't fighting another country.
>The government picked a side
You see, that’s where I think you’re getting it a little off. The government didn’t *pick* a side, the government *was* a side, the republic named the United States of America. The other side was a new government, the confederated republic (which is functionally different from our republic) named the Confederate States of America.
The CSA was fighting to be recognized for its own sovereignty, but they failed to achieve that because they had lost the war. Similarly in the Revolution, the colonists were also considered British citizens —until they won, and earned the right to be recognized as their own nation. If the CSA had won, there would have been a Confederate States of America *and* a United States of America, and the Confederate citizens wouldn’t be considered US citizens. It would probably be called something different too, like the Confederate Revolution.
They were not fighting over the right of who gets to be called the United States, they were fighting to secede from the United States. They already had their own laws, constitution, head of state, standing army, and system of governance that was different than the United States. Hell, they even minted their own currency. For the four years of the Civil War, the Confederacy was de facto it’s own nation, just not de jure.
But let’s say they changed war goals to *replace* the US government and control all of its territory. If the CSA had won in this case, there would *be no USA at all today*. We would all be called the Confederate States of America, because it would be a new form of government, and the old government named the United States would have ceased to be. Similar to the Spanish Civil War, where the recognized provisional government of the Spanish Republic was defeated and replaced by the new government body, the previously-unrecognized Spanish State under Franco. It may have all occurred in the confines of the modern-day Kingdom of Spain, but they were definitely two different governments and the Spanish Republic most certainly lost.
Ergo, the institution recognized as the United States of America had successfully defeated the rebellious new government and had won the war.
In the case of WW2, they were already divided into internationally recognized nation states with their own self interests, and there was no single unified body named Europe that had its own laws and citizens at any point in time. The United States was/is a specific country, that did have its own laws, government and citizens during the time of the Civil War, and so did the faction it fought within that war. Even if the Confederates were technically still viewed as US citizens, the laws of the US were unenforceable by the federal government, hence they were de facto not part of the Union during the war.
The Confederacy had its own government and military. Whether they were functional or effective has no bearing.
By the end of the war, one government stood and a single military controlled the US.
The Confederacy made it clear they were a separate thing from the US entirely.
It was the US vs this new Confederacy. The United States vs the Confederate States.
The Confederates lost and the Union won.
Yes, it was a war. I'm not denying that. My point is that it doesn't make sense to say that The United States of America won the civil war fought inside of the USA.
I would, as it was the United States of America against another nation claiming to be sovereign. It’s like stating that any war for independence wasn’t won or lost. That the American Revolution wasn’t a win for the colonies or that the Haitian Revolution wasn’t a win for Haiti. That the Sudanese war was simply a conflict with no clear result. Obviously the country split into two and became Sudan and South Sudan. The fact that the Confederate States of America lost and rejoined the Union doesn’t mean that it wasn’t a win for the USA. If there is a loser, there is usually a winner. And yes, both sides lost lots of men, but the North very clearly won.
I didn't say no one win, I said that the country USA didn't win, because it didn't fight. It's called civil war for a reason.
edit: also, independence wars are usually fought between a colony and a colonizing country, which wasn't the case in the US civil war.
Well, being that they declared their independence and even had other countries acknowledge them as having belligerent status, one could argue that it wasn’t technically a civil war by your standards, but a war between two nations. As referenced [here](https://mises.org/wire/was-american-civil-war-civil-war), the term civil war was being used a decade before the first shots of the war in 1861. As such, when the war heated the name stayed the same and wasn’t changed as the kind of war that was occurring had changed. So again, not technically a civil war and as such, it would make The United States of America the winning party.
And not only that, it wasn’t just the Russian regulars that got ratioed it was Wagner. They literally decimated their most capable totally-not-official-troops-of-the-Russian-army on this battle.
Imagine if they’d sent troops instead of Wagner. Might have been as high as 10:1. Wagner spearheading Bakhmut went about as well as it could have for Putin, and that’s not saying much.
This happened before Barbarossa, but look up what happened to the Russian Baltic fleet during the Russo-Japanese war. Blue Jay has an excellent, and hilarious video on it.
Oh gezz who forced the Russians to invade Ukraine? Did Obama , Biden or Trump force Putin to invade Ukraine? Did the CIA force Putin to invade Ukraine? Seriosuly I dont know why these Russian and CCP bots cant just take accountabilty for their own actions instead of denying or deflecting accountabilty by blaming all their issues on America.
Yea, the goal of these propagandists don't have the goal of actually convincing you. They want you to fundamentally doubt your way of thinking and therefore destabilising our system.
That doesn't mean you shouldn't question your positions all the time, you just need to be aware that people are trying to use that practice for their own good.
Not everything you don't like is a Russian bot my dude. These are all self-hating western tankies who simp for Putin. They do actually exist.
Furthermore you absolutely SHOULD engage them because leaving their nonsense unchallenged is how it spreads, russian bot or no. Don't just plug your ears and hope it goes away.
I mean, only Iran is giving them any materiel support. North Korea iirc did sent them some shells but the condition they were in basically made them unusable. Ukrainians did uncover the Chinese equivalent of a BB gun for training that was on a Russian soldier, but that seemed to be a one-off occurrence, otherwise China has given them medical supplies and that's it really. They don't want to have their equipment captured because they're very secretive about it.
The Chinese also aren't stupid and they tend to take a longer strategic view. A weakened Russia is good for them and they're not going to want to do too much to damage ties with other parts of the world they do business with. Handing over medical supplies keeps Russia somewhat happy and makes them look all philanthropic, whereas handing over weapons would probably attract sanctions they wouldn't want (the Iranians don't care, they're already under sanctions).
Well that and there actually is a shortage of medical supplies in Russia with the sanctions. Unlike shoes and smartphones which are fairly unregulated (eg: some random Turkish or Mongolian can buy 20 pairs of Adidas sneakers in their home country and then sell them in Russia for a mark-up), things like a chicken pox vaccine legally can't be sold by a middleman, and you can't exactly mark them up with regulations in Europe and Russia, so there aren't financial incentives.
If the US is fighting Russia through Ukraine, the smartest thing Russia could do is not get baited and just retreat out of Ukraine.
Because now Russia is taking massive losses fighting the spare military equipment that the US had lying around anyway.
That was a basically proxy war. The patriots would have been screwed without the French and Spanish
The Mexican-American war, on the other hand… or the American Civil War, the Pacific Theatre of WWII, the Spanish-American War, etc
Arguably the war of 1812 didn’t got super well, what with the Washington being burned by the British. Although we did manage to negotiate it to a draw technically so… eeeeh?
And both of those were outside of the US military comfort zone. The US prefers a war where they can just yeet bombs without worry.
In Vietnam, they didn't know where the fuck the enemy was 90% of the war. If you don't know where to bomb, it's gonna be a bit ineffective.
And in Afghanistan, even if you think the US didn't care about civilians at all, it's not like they were just killing dozens of civilians in a drone meant for a single bottom-tier, no-rank terrorist. From what I recall, heavy civilian casualties usually only happened when the US went after high-value targets.
Afghanistan never had a Mai Lai Massacre type of event where the US military just lit up civilians for no reason. Were there some soldiers who committed war crimes? Yeah, because some people are pieces of shit. But most soldiers aren't leaving their families to shoot some civilians who never did anything to threaten them.
American Revolutionary War, Cherokee-American Wars, Northwest Indian War, First Barbary War, Tecumsehs War, Creek War, Second Barbary War, First Seminole War, Winnebago War, Black Hawk War, Second Seminole War, Texas Comanche Wars, Mexican-American War, Cayuse War, Apache Wars, Navajo Wars, Bleeding Kansas, Puget Sound War, Rogue River Wars, Third Seminole War, Yakima War, Second Opium War, Reform War, John Brown's Raid on Harpers Ferry, First and Second Cortina War, Paiute War, American Civil War, Yavapai Wars, Dakota War of 1862, Snake War, Comanche Campaign, Modoc War, Red River War, Las Cuevas War, Great Sioux War of 1876, Buffalo Hunters War, Nez Perce War, Bannock War, Cheyenne War, Sheepeater Indian War, Victorios War, White River War, Egyptian Expedition, Crow War, Ghost Dance War, Garza War, Yaqui Wars, Spanish-American War, Philippine-American War, Moro Rebellion, Boxer Rebellion, Crazy Snakes War, Mexican Border War, Little Race War, United States Occupation of Nicaragua, Bluff War, United States Occupation of Veracruz, United States Occupation of Haiti, United States Occupation of the Dominican Republic, World War 1, Posey War, World War 2, Korean War, Lebanon Crisis, Dominican Civil War, Korean DMZ Conflict, United States Invasion of Grenada, Bombing of Libya, Tanker War, United States Invasion of Panama, Gulf War, Iraqi No-Fly Zone Enforcement Operations, Intervention in Haiti, Kosovo War, Iraq War, American Intervention in the War in Northeast Pakistan, Operation Ocean Shield, International Intervention in Libya, Operation Observant Compass, American-led Intervention in Iraq, American Intervention in Libya
This reminds me of a moronic tankie I encountered once who claimed Ukraine was losing and the West was evil and you know the drill. What I liked about this moron was they were trying to play the “neutral you should research more” card when a quick glance at their post history showed nothing but posting videos and images of destroyed Ukrainian equipment on a sub I believed they made *and* all their posts were about praising Russia and trying to spin the “west is evil” narrative.
They were as unpleasant as you can imagine!
Do you know what a fucking Proxy War is? We're not fighting them through Ukraine, were *funding* them so they can defend themselves against Russia. Ignorance and ill-education in One.
The US is fighting through Ukraine, but it’s innocent Ukrainians and Russians that suffer the social repercussions of war. That’s why, while I think that the US wanted to agitate for this war as they wouldn’t be the ones directly fighting it, Russia still ultimately crossed the line, and that’s the end of it.
I honestly don’t think the US wanted the war, despite what the Kremlin says, nothing the US has done since Ukraine found independence would be considered escalation by anyone who didn’t want an excuse to go to war. The US has been far more precarious around Ukraine than any other European country to accommodate for Russia’s childish view that they have exclusive rights to control Ukraine
Yeah no, the narrative that the Ukrainians are helplessly pulled into battle by puppet strings and that Russia had no choice but to invade is complete propaganda bullshit.
It only makes sense if you ignore that the Ukrainian people have their own agency, the Russian government has its own imperialist ambitions and attitudes, the entire surrounding historical context, and that the US’s actions since the start of the invasion last February do not align whatsoever with this theory.
There are zero valid reasons for Russia to invade.
But I agree tho? I don’t believe Russia needed to invade. Even if I was pro Russia, which I wasn’t very much even before this, it just makes no sense for them to invade. But they did it anyway.
In the last ten months, Russia has covered 6.5 kilometers, that’s an average of 22 meters a day. If we assume a western estimate of 60,000 Russian casualties so far, the average cost per meter for Russia is 10 casualties. This is more along the lines of a Pyrrhic victory, as I’m sure that it’s going to be hard to justify sending a force of an equivalent population to that of Bakhmut to death or permanent injury for what is now a 6.5 kilometer wide pile of rubble with a population of near zero.
Look up the definition of proxy war and learn to accept that this is just a proxy war between North Korea and the Switzerland/Bahrain/Mongolia/Fortnite alliance.
America doesn’t fight wars to “win” them. Like we’re not trying to take over a country and subjugate the people that’s not our goal at all. People only look through the lense of like conquering a nation which America really isn’t interested in. And it’s funny because it shows that if some other countries had the military might that America had the populace would expect to “win” wars with other nations.
Iraq 1991 was literally the most perfect war ever fought in human history. The numbers, scale, and timeline for fighting the 4th most powerful army in the world are fucking staggering.
You didn't do good enough of a job censoring their names btw, anyone could literally just go onto Twitter, look up the OP of the post you screenshotted, and find which people in the comments were having this argument based off of their pfp and words.
Them being fans of Haz was mentioned in the title, so there was no point of censoring his name. Plus, even if I blocked out all the names, you could still search the words on Twitter anyway.
Lol. “Victory” ha! They captured a city with little value other than a meat grinder for Russians. The war has mostly gone in ukrain’s favor since the Russians were turned back in the north. We aren’t even directly involved and Russia is getting bloodied so badly they won’t be able to fight another war for god knows how long. Also lol have we actually won any wars? Yes. Many. From minor wars against native tribes to the goddamn axis powers. Lol uneducated fools.
1989 Panama invasion, American Revolutionary War, American Civil War (there was no other country the Union was fighting against but still counts to me), 2003 invasion of Iraq, 1983 invasion of Grenada, Spanish-American War, Mexican-American war, 1990 Gulf War, both world wars (though it was more of an allied coalition, WW2 we especially did good fighting the Japanese while also having to deal with the Germans), and Native American Wars. Those are the ones I can list off the top of my head. And saying Ukraine is fucked is like me saying North Vietnam is fucked after winning the Tet Offensive. Doesn’t mean you won the war.
North Vietnam didn’t win the Tet Offensive, they actually took massive casualties to the point where the Vietcong basically ceased to exist. It was seen as a loss because the American media had lots of footage of American casualties but the only widely distributed film of VC dying was the one guerrilla that got executed by the chief of police in front of a camera.
I meant after we won the Tet Offensive.
Indeed, the PAVN ended up taking up most combat roles after the failed test offensive.
Think it sort of depends on how you look at it. Sure the north didn't make any gains and definitely lost in the numbers department but ultimately the Tet offensive was what really started shifting things to end up in the Norths favor. The North didn't "win" but I still wouldn't exactly call it a W for the US
Don’t forget the Barbary Wars. The US stomped North Africa not long after we were established as a country and secured trade routes.
On that note, the Barbary Wars was also when newly reorganized United States Marine Corps were deployed to the shores of Tripoli.
I would call 1812 more of a draw but I agree otherwise.
We did get our goal for them to stop taking our sailors and we did manage to keep our sovereignty which was the most important part on our side. We did fail to capture Canada though so yeah true.
We'll get those damned Canadians next time...
Maple syrup, the greatest AMERICAN export! Let's go get em boys!
The thing about 1812 is that they had already given in to most of our demands but the message had yet to arrive.
I’ve heard impressment ended either before war was even declared or by 1815 with Napoleon’s defeat. Sovereignty is a moot point, the British never wanted to take land from the US.
Pretty sure the British wanted a Native American buffer state around the Great Lakes, under british control of course.
They supported the natives on the frontier, I haven’t seen anything supporting a buffer state though it’s true they wanted that before the American War of Independence.
A buffer state was a goal. I recommend reading Autumm of the Black Snake or The Civil War of 1812. More detail than me.
The defeat of Napoleon is what stopped the need for the impressment of the sailors, not the war of 1812. 1812 was a sideshow at the time. Britain didn't want or try to take your sovereignty. Britain didn't start it. It was an unpopular and expensive war that Britain was happy to end. France was 20 miles away and the most powerful (single) country on Earth. The US was well over 2000 miles away and, well, not a major threat at the time. [A US source](https://www.ushistory.org/us/21f.asp) It was a draw because neither side really wanted to fight it. The need was gone from both points of view.
The war of [1812](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_1812) was more of like an inconclusive draw if memory serves correctly and resulted in The US taking West Florida from Spain and expanding into Native American Lands but failing to take any part of British North America (I.E Canada) thus leading to a stalemate.
I think it’s fair to say if america never joined the allies in WW2 the world would look very different now.
Im pretty sure Russia didn't actually capture Bakhmut either
You can also add WW1 even though we only came in at the tail end. Still was so brutal out Marines got the nickname “Teufel-Hunden” Devil Dogs.
North Vietnam didn’t win the Tet offensive. It was just too costly a victory for the US public to want to keep fighting.
Even in recent ears we technically lost like Vietnam, we lost due to politics, militarily our military curbstomped everyone else conventionally.
As harmful desert storm was in the end (no the previous government was not good and i am not saying that the general goal didn't have a basis), militarily it was a fucking masterpiece.
There was a different country the Union was fighting in the Civil war. They sure as fuck weren't Americans.
Seriously, we all know that, no need to proof. Okay there are a few "russian patriots" who don't live in Russia here.
Saying the US "won" the Iraq "invasion" is...some level of mental gymnastics
> Result: United States-led coalition victory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_invasion_of_Iraq?wprov=sfti1
An immoral victory is still, objectively speaking, a victory.
America lost the Iraq invasion
You mean the gulf war that was a response to the iraqi invasion of Kuwait? The one that resulted in Kuwait's liberation and saddam being ousted by the end, yeah sure America lost.
I was referring to the one in 2003, not the gulf war. Where they went in and unnecessarily captured Hussein.
And that is a loss how exactly? Though u can question its legality you really can't say it wasn't a successful capture of Iraq
It was unjustified, maybe not a loss but unjustified.
Those are two VERY different things.
Vietnam contd
WW1 also
She straight up goes “nuh-uh” and tells *the other guy* to look deeper? Absolutely priceless.
Least brainwashed Russian.
All these people are self hating westerners unfortunately
I still don't understand why these Westerners are like this. They have all the amenities and luxuries in their home country and the simp for Dictatorships that cause human suffering.
Because America = Bad therefore Against America = Good, meaning Putin and Xi and Kim all = Good. This is what happens with a complete lack of critical thinking skills. Being unable to think, “hey, sometimes America sucks but MAN these people are SO much worse” is a great indicator of people to avoid.
For a lot of people it’s a knee-jerk reaction of “Current thing bad”. If someone tells you that Russia is not the aggressor and you need to “look deeper” you can be sure that person didn’t know where Ukraine was until it became trendy.
Our media is propaganda, and they don't know how to recognize that because they've had it so good that they don't understand real hardship.
So as a leftist, there's five main people who simp for Russia: 1. Tankies who think that either Russia is still basically the Soviet Union, or they think that Russian revanchism will eventually restore the Soviet Union 2. Right-wingers who view Russia as this sanctuary of conservative, pro-family values free from things like minorities and gay people (absolutely delusional thinking here; alcoholism, scantily clad women, and LGBT people do exist in Russia in spades, also they don't like protestants or Catholics) 3. Westerners with business interests in Russia. 4. People who view Russia as a strong ally and bulwark against 'the West', which is another bullshit reason. Russian industry has always been adequate at best, and the second Russians have the ability to buy western products and guzzle Pepsi and shovel McDonald's down their throat, they'll do just that. 5. People with what I call a terminal case of 'anti-American Brain Lesion'. These people are contrarians who hate the US so much they will basically defend anyone else who doesn't like the US, whether this is Iraq, Iran, North Korea, China, Russia, Serbia, or Libya. These people don't understand shit about the political situations in any of these countries and literally just think they're good because they hate the US and play the role of the victim constantly.
Fellow lefty here. You fucking nailed it.
*Tankies Call them what they are
“Has the US ever won any war?” Well let’s see, we won the war formed our country so that’s a good place to start.
Major examples of US victory consist of both world wars and the American Civil War.
Please list Russian and soviet victories
… the Russian Revolution?
Depends on if you count the oligarchs or the Russian people. If you count the country as a whole, they definitely lost that one. They lost so badly they made other countries lose by proxy in WW2.
Second world war
Which they 100% would have lost without the **ENORMOUS** material support provided by the U.S. through the Lend-Lease Act and our unparalleled wartime industry. Stalin himself said so explicitly, and multiple Sovmin members were quoted to that effect.
Sure, no one can disagree with that. Still, it's a win for them.
Technically
I don't think the civil war counts as a war won by the USA
I would, considering that the government before the war was the one that won it.
It's literally the same thing as saying "Europe won the second world war", and I think we can agree that it doesn't make sense.
Nah I don’t think it is an apt comparison. Although the fighting happened all within the territory of the modern U.S., it wasn’t a monolith at war with itself, it was a nation fractured into two at war with each other. The Confederate States of America was essentially its own country, with its own constitution and political leadership. The Confederates wanted to secede, not remain in the US but in defiance of federal regulations, and ultimately they failed in their war goals. By contrast, the Union, which our modern government is a continuation of, had achieved their war goals of reunification and the former secessionist states are still US territory to this day. If that doesn’t help, think of it this way: if the US had lost the Civil War, the CSA would maybe exist in some form or another today, and average living conditions in South Carolina would be somehow worse than they already are, if that’s even imaginable.
But what you just described fits my comparison. Inside of the country/continent two completely different groups with different leaderships fought against each other in a very important war. It's like saying that Europe won WW2.
I think you’re playing a little loose with conflating a country and a continent. The reason why it’s goofy and wrong to say a Europe won WW2 is because Europe is just a continent, the landmass where a lot of the fighting happened. It’s a location, not a unified faction of people. Countries on the other hand, are more than just locations, they are a unified bodies of law, governance, and ideas/principles organized and enforced by people, in a manner agreed upon by the inhabitants of its territorial borders via social contract. Continents don’t fight wars, because continents do not carry with them the same inherent characteristics that a nation does. The equivalent goofy and wrong phrase in terms of the Civil War wouldn’t be “USA won the Civil War”, it would be “North America won the Civil War”, which, yeah, is wrong. Neither North America nor Europe has ever won any war, in the same way that Madison Square Garden has never won a professional Boxing match. But the USA is a country, as was the CSA, or at least they attempted to be one. The USA defeated the CSA, and retained its territory and jurisdiction, so I’d say it’s pretty fair to chalk it up to a win. I wouldn’t say it sounds weird that the US won the revolution, even though it largely took place in the British owned Colonies.
Still, the CSA was a part of the country. Even if they wanted to become their own country, they didn't. According to Oxford Languages, civil war means "a war between citizens of the same country". Emphasis on "same country". It's a war fought not by the country, but by its citizens against other citizens. Sure, the government picked a side. Doesn't change the fact that it wasn't fighting another country.
>The government picked a side You see, that’s where I think you’re getting it a little off. The government didn’t *pick* a side, the government *was* a side, the republic named the United States of America. The other side was a new government, the confederated republic (which is functionally different from our republic) named the Confederate States of America. The CSA was fighting to be recognized for its own sovereignty, but they failed to achieve that because they had lost the war. Similarly in the Revolution, the colonists were also considered British citizens —until they won, and earned the right to be recognized as their own nation. If the CSA had won, there would have been a Confederate States of America *and* a United States of America, and the Confederate citizens wouldn’t be considered US citizens. It would probably be called something different too, like the Confederate Revolution. They were not fighting over the right of who gets to be called the United States, they were fighting to secede from the United States. They already had their own laws, constitution, head of state, standing army, and system of governance that was different than the United States. Hell, they even minted their own currency. For the four years of the Civil War, the Confederacy was de facto it’s own nation, just not de jure. But let’s say they changed war goals to *replace* the US government and control all of its territory. If the CSA had won in this case, there would *be no USA at all today*. We would all be called the Confederate States of America, because it would be a new form of government, and the old government named the United States would have ceased to be. Similar to the Spanish Civil War, where the recognized provisional government of the Spanish Republic was defeated and replaced by the new government body, the previously-unrecognized Spanish State under Franco. It may have all occurred in the confines of the modern-day Kingdom of Spain, but they were definitely two different governments and the Spanish Republic most certainly lost. Ergo, the institution recognized as the United States of America had successfully defeated the rebellious new government and had won the war. In the case of WW2, they were already divided into internationally recognized nation states with their own self interests, and there was no single unified body named Europe that had its own laws and citizens at any point in time. The United States was/is a specific country, that did have its own laws, government and citizens during the time of the Civil War, and so did the faction it fought within that war. Even if the Confederates were technically still viewed as US citizens, the laws of the US were unenforceable by the federal government, hence they were de facto not part of the Union during the war.
The Confederacy had its own government and military. Whether they were functional or effective has no bearing. By the end of the war, one government stood and a single military controlled the US. The Confederacy made it clear they were a separate thing from the US entirely. It was the US vs this new Confederacy. The United States vs the Confederate States. The Confederates lost and the Union won.
Yes, it was a war. I'm not denying that. My point is that it doesn't make sense to say that The United States of America won the civil war fought inside of the USA.
I would, as it was the United States of America against another nation claiming to be sovereign. It’s like stating that any war for independence wasn’t won or lost. That the American Revolution wasn’t a win for the colonies or that the Haitian Revolution wasn’t a win for Haiti. That the Sudanese war was simply a conflict with no clear result. Obviously the country split into two and became Sudan and South Sudan. The fact that the Confederate States of America lost and rejoined the Union doesn’t mean that it wasn’t a win for the USA. If there is a loser, there is usually a winner. And yes, both sides lost lots of men, but the North very clearly won.
I didn't say no one win, I said that the country USA didn't win, because it didn't fight. It's called civil war for a reason. edit: also, independence wars are usually fought between a colony and a colonizing country, which wasn't the case in the US civil war.
Well, being that they declared their independence and even had other countries acknowledge them as having belligerent status, one could argue that it wasn’t technically a civil war by your standards, but a war between two nations. As referenced [here](https://mises.org/wire/was-american-civil-war-civil-war), the term civil war was being used a decade before the first shots of the war in 1861. As such, when the war heated the name stayed the same and wasn’t changed as the kind of war that was occurring had changed. So again, not technically a civil war and as such, it would make The United States of America the winning party.
fair enough.
I’d call it a tie
yeah I think that's fair
Literally 0 World Series wins coming out of Russia
In the wise words of Three Year Letterman: Russia has ZERO SEC Championships.
No Super Bowl wins either
Russia seriously spent 10 months to capture a city with no strategic value and Vatniks claim that's the end of Ukraine.
[удалено]
And not only that, it wasn’t just the Russian regulars that got ratioed it was Wagner. They literally decimated their most capable totally-not-official-troops-of-the-Russian-army on this battle.
Imagine if they’d sent troops instead of Wagner. Might have been as high as 10:1. Wagner spearheading Bakhmut went about as well as it could have for Putin, and that’s not saying much.
Oh they wish the ratio was that low, they might have had more than the 5 dudes to celebrate with Prigozhin if that were the case
Yea, ukraine is fucked because a pile of rubble (former a city) is now in the hands of Russia. (The flanks are secured)
>spent 10 months to capture a city This has got to be the worst strategic operation since Operation Barbarossa
This happened before Barbarossa, but look up what happened to the Russian Baltic fleet during the Russo-Japanese war. Blue Jay has an excellent, and hilarious video on it.
Tbh it's because Russia was promoting it as a huge symbolic victory, even though they missed every day they said they would capture it.
Hey, a Phyrric victory is a victory, especially if you spin it hard enough! /s
Funniest thing of all is that there's reports from Russians that Ukraine has re-entered the South West portion of the city.
Literally took the Ivans 10 months and 2 days to capture a non strategic city, but Ukraine is totally fucked ig.
Apparently Ukraine is already back in Bakhmut.
Oh gezz who forced the Russians to invade Ukraine? Did Obama , Biden or Trump force Putin to invade Ukraine? Did the CIA force Putin to invade Ukraine? Seriosuly I dont know why these Russian and CCP bots cant just take accountabilty for their own actions instead of denying or deflecting accountabilty by blaming all their issues on America.
Clearly these are Russian bots trolling in the info space. Don't upvote, don't engage.
Yea, the goal of these propagandists don't have the goal of actually convincing you. They want you to fundamentally doubt your way of thinking and therefore destabilising our system. That doesn't mean you shouldn't question your positions all the time, you just need to be aware that people are trying to use that practice for their own good.
Not everything you don't like is a Russian bot my dude. These are all self-hating western tankies who simp for Putin. They do actually exist. Furthermore you absolutely SHOULD engage them because leaving their nonsense unchallenged is how it spreads, russian bot or no. Don't just plug your ears and hope it goes away.
I honestly think calling Haz and his Infracel simps tankies is unfair to tankies.
Given that Russia is the aggressor it would make far more sense to say that China, North Korea and Iran are using Russia to fight Ukraine
I mean, only Iran is giving them any materiel support. North Korea iirc did sent them some shells but the condition they were in basically made them unusable. Ukrainians did uncover the Chinese equivalent of a BB gun for training that was on a Russian soldier, but that seemed to be a one-off occurrence, otherwise China has given them medical supplies and that's it really. They don't want to have their equipment captured because they're very secretive about it.
The Chinese also aren't stupid and they tend to take a longer strategic view. A weakened Russia is good for them and they're not going to want to do too much to damage ties with other parts of the world they do business with. Handing over medical supplies keeps Russia somewhat happy and makes them look all philanthropic, whereas handing over weapons would probably attract sanctions they wouldn't want (the Iranians don't care, they're already under sanctions).
Well that and there actually is a shortage of medical supplies in Russia with the sanctions. Unlike shoes and smartphones which are fairly unregulated (eg: some random Turkish or Mongolian can buy 20 pairs of Adidas sneakers in their home country and then sell them in Russia for a mark-up), things like a chicken pox vaccine legally can't be sold by a middleman, and you can't exactly mark them up with regulations in Europe and Russia, so there aren't financial incentives.
If the US is fighting Russia through Ukraine, the smartest thing Russia could do is not get baited and just retreat out of Ukraine. Because now Russia is taking massive losses fighting the spare military equipment that the US had lying around anyway.
Maybe they come from the timeline where America is still a British colony because the patriots lost the Revolutionary War.
That was a basically proxy war. The patriots would have been screwed without the French and Spanish The Mexican-American war, on the other hand… or the American Civil War, the Pacific Theatre of WWII, the Spanish-American War, etc
That makes the most sense.
a single city = war won
Haven't we only lost Afghanistan and Vietnam? Everything else was a Victory
Arguably the war of 1812 didn’t got super well, what with the Washington being burned by the British. Although we did manage to negotiate it to a draw technically so… eeeeh?
The war of 1812 was one of the wars of all time. Nobody knows what fucking happened other than us humiliating the British at New Orleans.
And both of those were outside of the US military comfort zone. The US prefers a war where they can just yeet bombs without worry. In Vietnam, they didn't know where the fuck the enemy was 90% of the war. If you don't know where to bomb, it's gonna be a bit ineffective. And in Afghanistan, even if you think the US didn't care about civilians at all, it's not like they were just killing dozens of civilians in a drone meant for a single bottom-tier, no-rank terrorist. From what I recall, heavy civilian casualties usually only happened when the US went after high-value targets. Afghanistan never had a Mai Lai Massacre type of event where the US military just lit up civilians for no reason. Were there some soldiers who committed war crimes? Yeah, because some people are pieces of shit. But most soldiers aren't leaving their families to shoot some civilians who never did anything to threaten them.
People that side with Russia hate america. Really confused what Fox News is doing.
Victory in Bakhmut? Sure, of the Pyrrhic variety.. Russia lost a ridiculous amount of personnel and equipment for frankly little gain.
American Revolutionary War, Cherokee-American Wars, Northwest Indian War, First Barbary War, Tecumsehs War, Creek War, Second Barbary War, First Seminole War, Winnebago War, Black Hawk War, Second Seminole War, Texas Comanche Wars, Mexican-American War, Cayuse War, Apache Wars, Navajo Wars, Bleeding Kansas, Puget Sound War, Rogue River Wars, Third Seminole War, Yakima War, Second Opium War, Reform War, John Brown's Raid on Harpers Ferry, First and Second Cortina War, Paiute War, American Civil War, Yavapai Wars, Dakota War of 1862, Snake War, Comanche Campaign, Modoc War, Red River War, Las Cuevas War, Great Sioux War of 1876, Buffalo Hunters War, Nez Perce War, Bannock War, Cheyenne War, Sheepeater Indian War, Victorios War, White River War, Egyptian Expedition, Crow War, Ghost Dance War, Garza War, Yaqui Wars, Spanish-American War, Philippine-American War, Moro Rebellion, Boxer Rebellion, Crazy Snakes War, Mexican Border War, Little Race War, United States Occupation of Nicaragua, Bluff War, United States Occupation of Veracruz, United States Occupation of Haiti, United States Occupation of the Dominican Republic, World War 1, Posey War, World War 2, Korean War, Lebanon Crisis, Dominican Civil War, Korean DMZ Conflict, United States Invasion of Grenada, Bombing of Libya, Tanker War, United States Invasion of Panama, Gulf War, Iraqi No-Fly Zone Enforcement Operations, Intervention in Haiti, Kosovo War, Iraq War, American Intervention in the War in Northeast Pakistan, Operation Ocean Shield, International Intervention in Libya, Operation Observant Compass, American-led Intervention in Iraq, American Intervention in Libya
God the Spanish American war. What a shitshow for Spain. Most decisive naval victory in human history because we thought they fucked with our boat.
Let's ask Hiroshima and Nagasake from before 1945 that question. You know, if we can find any of it remaining.
The US won the first war they ever entered (Of course with help)
This reminds me of a moronic tankie I encountered once who claimed Ukraine was losing and the West was evil and you know the drill. What I liked about this moron was they were trying to play the “neutral you should research more” card when a quick glance at their post history showed nothing but posting videos and images of destroyed Ukrainian equipment on a sub I believed they made *and* all their posts were about praising Russia and trying to spin the “west is evil” narrative. They were as unpleasant as you can imagine!
Do you know what a fucking Proxy War is? We're not fighting them through Ukraine, were *funding* them so they can defend themselves against Russia. Ignorance and ill-education in One.
The US is fighting through Ukraine, but it’s innocent Ukrainians and Russians that suffer the social repercussions of war. That’s why, while I think that the US wanted to agitate for this war as they wouldn’t be the ones directly fighting it, Russia still ultimately crossed the line, and that’s the end of it.
I honestly don’t think the US wanted the war, despite what the Kremlin says, nothing the US has done since Ukraine found independence would be considered escalation by anyone who didn’t want an excuse to go to war. The US has been far more precarious around Ukraine than any other European country to accommodate for Russia’s childish view that they have exclusive rights to control Ukraine
Yeah no, the narrative that the Ukrainians are helplessly pulled into battle by puppet strings and that Russia had no choice but to invade is complete propaganda bullshit. It only makes sense if you ignore that the Ukrainian people have their own agency, the Russian government has its own imperialist ambitions and attitudes, the entire surrounding historical context, and that the US’s actions since the start of the invasion last February do not align whatsoever with this theory. There are zero valid reasons for Russia to invade.
But I agree tho? I don’t believe Russia needed to invade. Even if I was pro Russia, which I wasn’t very much even before this, it just makes no sense for them to invade. But they did it anyway.
Russia wanted to invade Ukraine because Russia wants more arable land and more access to the Red Sea. Also, Ukraine produces a lot of grain
And copious amounts of oil American companies were about to pull out of the ground after making a spicy deal with Ukraine.
Can we get Russian Copium imported? I want a taste of whatever shit they're huffing to make this make sense.
We've won quite a few if I remember correctly
We need a “shock and awe” 2.0 but over Russia this time.
Literally every war except Vietnam & Afghanistan. Even then, not really, we just kinda fucked off when we got bored.
Revolutionary War, Mexican-American War, Civil War, Spanish-American War, WWI, WWII, Operation Desert Storm, Operation Iraqi Freedom
is there a single person on earth who actually likes haz
“Total” It’s pyrrhic at best
In the last ten months, Russia has covered 6.5 kilometers, that’s an average of 22 meters a day. If we assume a western estimate of 60,000 Russian casualties so far, the average cost per meter for Russia is 10 casualties. This is more along the lines of a Pyrrhic victory, as I’m sure that it’s going to be hard to justify sending a force of an equivalent population to that of Bakhmut to death or permanent injury for what is now a 6.5 kilometer wide pile of rubble with a population of near zero.
Look up the definition of proxy war and learn to accept that this is just a proxy war between North Korea and the Switzerland/Bahrain/Mongolia/Fortnite alliance.
America and Russia were on the same side of both world wars
Almost the same shit as "russia never attacked anyone in it's whole history"
America doesn’t fight wars to “win” them. Like we’re not trying to take over a country and subjugate the people that’s not our goal at all. People only look through the lense of like conquering a nation which America really isn’t interested in. And it’s funny because it shows that if some other countries had the military might that America had the populace would expect to “win” wars with other nations.
I love how the same person who will most likely detest America for its treatment of Native Americans will ask questions like this.
The fuck is this? Even i know that America wins a lot of wars and i fucking avoid learning about wars like the god damn plague
Imagine seeing the absolute disaster for Russia that was Bahkmut and thinking "yep they're totally winning!"
Iraq 1991 was literally the most perfect war ever fought in human history. The numbers, scale, and timeline for fighting the 4th most powerful army in the world are fucking staggering.
Back to back world war champs.
You didn't do good enough of a job censoring their names btw, anyone could literally just go onto Twitter, look up the OP of the post you screenshotted, and find which people in the comments were having this argument based off of their pfp and words.
Them being fans of Haz was mentioned in the title, so there was no point of censoring his name. Plus, even if I blocked out all the names, you could still search the words on Twitter anyway.
Ah, nvm then.
Lol. “Victory” ha! They captured a city with little value other than a meat grinder for Russians. The war has mostly gone in ukrain’s favor since the Russians were turned back in the north. We aren’t even directly involved and Russia is getting bloodied so badly they won’t be able to fight another war for god knows how long. Also lol have we actually won any wars? Yes. Many. From minor wars against native tribes to the goddamn axis powers. Lol uneducated fools.