The USA has never lost a war

Change my mind. Militarily speaking, the US has never been defeated.
>but 1812
Militarily it was a draw and it resulted in the end of impressment and trade restrictions as well as removing native resistance in the west so it overall benefited the US.
>but Korea
South Korea stayed up so the US did what it intendend to do. North Koreans got their shit pushed in and the first two phases of China's offensive were only successful because of Soviet aid and human waves of millions of troops. After the third phase they started to get destroyed by the US/allies. By the fifth phase they were sending in 700,000 troops and still losing their gains while taking catastrophic losses.
>but Vietnam
The phase of the war from 1965 to 1973 that the US was actually involved in was a victory for them. Every offensive attempt by the PAVN/PLAF against the south was defeated when the US was there and they were repeatedly forced out of the country until a peace deal was signed. South Vietnam fell because the US stopped aiding them (mainly due to domestic issues) while the north was getting a ton of help from China and the USSR. The US never made any offensive attempt against North Vietnam so as to not escalate the war and get the USSR and China directly involved, but if they did you could bet the entire country would be under US control after a couple weeks at most.

Beware Cat Shirt $21.68

Rise, Grind, Banana Find Shirt $21.68

Beware Cat Shirt $21.68

  1. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    >but Afghanistan
    The US overthrew the Taliban government in only 9 weeks while taking very few casualties. After that the Taliban mainly just hid in Pakistan and launched small offensives that were defeated by coalition forces. They only managed to control irrelevant backwater areas while the important cities were under coalition control. The Taliban was never able to defeat US forces in battle and couldn't do anything until after the US left due to signing a peace deal. The Taliban took over afterward because the corrupt Afghan government barely put up resistance.
    The USA is undeniably the greatest military power in history. Any attempt to deny it by saying "but they lost x war" is either motivated seething or just ignorance of what actually happened in said war.

    • 4 months ago
      Anonymous

      Unfathomably based and utterly indisputable, historically accurate on all counts and I’ve never seen an argument to the contrary make a convincing counter when presented with all the relevant info and context. Cheers to all the tankies, wignats, seething third worlders and contrarian homosexuals who will undoubtedly shit themselves in rage at this thread, it changes nothing and no amount of cope will ever change that

    • 4 months ago
      Anonymous

      >The US overthrew the Taliban government
      The Northern Alliance did that, not the yankee b***hes.

  2. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    >Soviet aid
    The Soviet aid did not start arriving to the PVA in force until after the Chinese momentum began to slow down. During China’s first two offensives they were mostly working with the mixture of American, Japanese, European etc small arms they had captured during the civil war as well as all the supplies the UN left behind as it was retreating out of the north. Stalin began sending large amounts of weaponry when China’s third offensive failed and they realized that coasting off of surprise, willpower and one old Japanese rifle for every two men wasn’t going to cut it anymore.
    >and human waves of millions of troops
    the Chinese attacked into North Korea with 380,000 troops against 340,000 UN. Chinese logistics were incapable of supporting millions of men at a time.
    >Every offensive attempt by the PAVN/PLAF against the south was defeated when the US was there and they were repeatedly forced out of the country until a peace deal was signed
    and the US was incapable of managing to leave with enough diplomatic assuredness that the south would survive. that is a loss.
    >but if they did
    yeah, well...they didn't.
    At any rate i don't see why an American occupation of North Vietnam would be anything except one long battle of Con Thien.

    • 4 months ago
      Anonymous

      >occupation of North Vietnam would be anything except one long battle of Con Thien
      Con Thien, Khe Sahn, and Dien Bien Phu, only happened because the NVA were able to set up and maintain artillery positions within shooting distance of those installations. In the case of Con Thien and Khe Sahn, it was because they were so close to the DMZ that the NVA could base their artillery sites in North Vietnam and fire with impunity. Any time the US called in bomb strikes or their own artillery to hit back the NVA would just move their own artillery. In the case of Dien Bien Phu it's because the French were fricking moronic and allowed to the Viet Minh to control all the area around the place for hundreds of miles, and also put it in a fricking valley which is the most indescribably stupid fricking plan i've ever heard of.

      Point is, a US invasion of North Vietnam would not have been like any of those examples. The US would have been able to destroy the NVA artillery on the ground and would have been far better able to destroy any NVA artillery due to their far superior logistical and operational capabilities. The reason that Con Thien and Khe Sanh are the only real artillery sieges the US endured are because every where else in South Vietnam (and Laos and Cambodia to a certain extent), any NVA artillery use larger than a mortar would have an air assault helicopter company attacking it before they had a chance to even move the fricking guns.

      I will grant you that OP is ridiculously optimistic in the US being able to occupy North Vietnam "in a few weeks," it would have taken probably another 1-2 years to invade and bring it to a level of stability comparable to South Vietnam. The jungle warfare would be largely the same as in South Vietnam with lots of air assaults and infantry sweeps, and the urban fighting would look like the fighting in Hue in 68. But the intensity would be 10x worse in North Vietnam than in SV. The US would have suffered 10x the casualties.

      TBC

      • 4 months ago
        Anonymous

        Continued;

        The US would have suffered 10x the initial casualties as in South Vietnam and the low intensity warfare after the first year or two would still be significantly greater than in South Vietnam. The North Viets would have been perfectly fine to continue fighting in the countryside, and holding up in South China and Laos. The only thing a US invasion of North Vietnam would have accomplished would be even more casualties and far more public outcry and pushback at home.

        The real takeaway is that the US had no fricking business being in Vietnam in the first place, and we never had the willpower to enforce our idea of democracy on an unwilling people. No amount of US firepower and lives were going to prop up South Vietnam because the South Vietnamese themselves were not willing to fight and die for that State.

  3. 4 months ago
    Anonymous
    • 4 months ago
      Anonymous

      that’s about on par with claiming the US won in Iraq and Afghanistan because they got to build more bases in Kuwait. Huh?

      • 4 months ago
        Anonymous

        >Soviet aid
        The Soviet aid did not start arriving to the PVA in force until after the Chinese momentum began to slow down. During China’s first two offensives they were mostly working with the mixture of American, Japanese, European etc small arms they had captured during the civil war as well as all the supplies the UN left behind as it was retreating out of the north. Stalin began sending large amounts of weaponry when China’s third offensive failed and they realized that coasting off of surprise, willpower and one old Japanese rifle for every two men wasn’t going to cut it anymore.
        >and human waves of millions of troops
        the Chinese attacked into North Korea with 380,000 troops against 340,000 UN. Chinese logistics were incapable of supporting millions of men at a time.
        >Every offensive attempt by the PAVN/PLAF against the south was defeated when the US was there and they were repeatedly forced out of the country until a peace deal was signed
        and the US was incapable of managing to leave with enough diplomatic assuredness that the south would survive. that is a loss.
        >but if they did
        yeah, well...they didn't.
        At any rate i don't see why an American occupation of North Vietnam would be anything except one long battle of Con Thien.

        Nobody ever says Alexander the Great or Ghengis Kahn lost just because their empires didn't hold after they died

        • 4 months ago
          Anonymous

          I’ve seen that, unfortunately.

        • 4 months ago
          Anonymous

          I’m not saying the US lost. both sides lost an awful lot of men for a tie.

        • 4 months ago
          Anonymous

          >Ghengis Kahn lost just because their empires didn't hold after they died
          Black person no one says this because the mongols grew to be a political entity so large they were able to larp as chinese emperors
          why the frick is nu-IQfy purely educated by reddit and youtube, did you not complete school?

  4. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    >it's not a defeat if you ragequit before the match ends

  5. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    A lot of countries can make this claim if you allow them to be all "nuh uh we only withdrew when we got tired of kicking ass"
    If the US has ever set an objective and failed to meet it then they've lost.

  6. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    >Loses the war on drugs
    >Loses the war on childhood obesity
    >Loses the war with self

    • 4 months ago
      Anonymous

      Also lost the war on terrorism

    • 4 months ago
      Anonymous

      Also the war on Christmas.
      One of the saddest things I've ever seen is an Elf veteran with PTSD and a meth addiction in skid row
      Damn you Atheists!
      Damn you all to hell!

  7. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    >uh we left the war before we lost vietnam so it doesnt count!!!

  8. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    The point of the Vietnam war was to ensure the existence of a pro American state in south vietnam. I don't see how you could possible think they did anything but lose

    • 4 months ago
      Anonymous

      >The point of the Vietnam war was to ensure the existence of a pro American state
      Why?

  9. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    The USA lost the ACW

  10. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    US souldiers were throwing grenades on officials in Vietnam, son. The USA obviously lost it.

  11. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    Lol the war of 1812 the british won you tried to stab them in the back while they were busy with napoleon and you got BTFOED by a bunch of canadian militiamen and allied natives. you got fricked over so badly you changed your whole policy of expansionism to picking on third world shitholes with shaky governments like mexico.

  12. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    What about the Iraqi insurgency after the 2nd iraq war?

  13. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    The loss to the Taliban is the most humiliating defeat since Port Arthur

  14. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    I sort of agree, but it's also true to say the US didn't "win" in 1812, Vietnam, or Afghanistan.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *