Has your country ever been the bad guy in a war?

>USA
no

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkish_Abductions
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

> Argentina
no

>Albania
no

>Sweden
yea

>Brazil
We never declared a war before of being invaded or attacked. No

>UK
no

>Norway
I don't know, maybe

but you killed 90% of paraguayans or something

You were the bad guys in the first world war

>Turkey
no

>You were the bad guys in the first world war

no

>restrict your own people from being free enough to declare independence
>Declare war with them, your own people because of it
>NOPE, NEVER BEEN THE BAD GUY

As for Norway, i dunno, we've been too cucked by other nations to have had much power most of the time


At least you've got self criticism, unlike the american

They invaded us first.

>ignoring the time period between 1775 and 1812

you helped Lenin get to Russia, invaded France, and helped Austria-Hungary in their bullying of Serbia

>Sweden
no

>UK
never

senpai this looks TOO real ree

>Europe is having some disagreements
>Americans roll in and claim victory and end up the strongest afterwards

There's no good guy and bad guy in a war.

lol

The whiter guys are the good once. Finland are always good, then Sweden, Estonia, Norway and Denmark. Baddest are Australians because of abos and subsaharan africans (niggers).

Why aren't you cuckposting in you cuckold vermin.

...

I know this is bait but
>war
>bad guy

>Scotland
No

Spain
Yes

we've always been the good guy
>American revolution: fought Britain for independence
>war of 1812: the Brits were embargoing us
>Mexican-American war: they tried to annex Texas
>Spanish-American war: they had it coming
>WWI: you guys started it
>WWII: Japs attacked us and Nazis declared war on us
>Korea: they tried to invade south Korea
>VIetnam: tried to prevent communism spreading
>Iraq 1: they invaded Kuwait
>Iraq 2: they had it coming

You're missing the war of northern aggression... hmmm...

>Austria
No
>Iraq
No

I agree with your revolution, but i was talking about the Civil war
The Emancipation Proclamation wasn't passed until years after the war had already started, and it specifically says it's meant for "Those states or other areas that are rebellious towards the United States"

It was not about Slavery, and the south should have been allowed to leave

Also, Vietnam was a mess, and iraq only made things worse

>>Spanish-American war
>>VIetnam
Fuck you. Seriously, fuck you.

t. Butthurt Phillicommie

we freed you guys from Spain, you should be thanking me

>spain
yes

Fuck. You.

>Ireland
no

No

>France
no

Ceci.

nope.

>Germany
I don't think so

REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

KYS KYS KYS KYS KYS KYS KYS KYS KYS

MOMOMMTB WILL NEVER DO THAT DELET THIS MOMMY IS PURITY SHE WILL NEVER DOO THAT DELET DELET DELET DELET

>Chile

Nope.

eh

You're just falling for the Southerners b8 (that they don't believe themselves) here Norge, slavery was an issue that was batted around and put off for decades simply because the South would get nuts about it at the slightest hint of reasonable discourse on it.

For the first time ever a party that was openly anti-slavery (albeit conservatively, IE let's have a conversation about it's future) was elected and the south illegally decided to say and a bunch of lawmakers jumped the guns, attacked federal property, and invaded northern land.

You also have to realize a large portion of the southern population probably supported the Union, hell around 115-150K+ white men from the South fought for the Union. There's a reason the South had to do brutal conscription in order to boost ranks (kind of conscription where if you didn't show you'd be killed)

And it's also true most Union citizens probably didn't give much of a rat's ass about slaves and certainly wouldn't really die for them, so the timing of the emancipation had to be at a point where the Union was "winning" the war, otherwise it may quickly lose support in the common Union citizen. For the first year or two the South was making great ground, if they had won at Gettysburg they may have gotten to DC and forced an end to the war.

Han shot first.

That bit about only declaring it when winning is interesting, i'll have to do some more research

But the south still should have been allowed to leave, seeing as they did so in democratic ways.
I don't agree with slavery, and i'm glad it ended, but even if slavery was the reason they seceded, i can't believe it was the reason the North wanted them back

>pls come bck, we mst be moraaaal

Also, i doubt either side were prepared to lose several hundred thousand just because the opposite side had differing ideas of morals

It really wasn't democratic though.

Think about it this way, if they actually had a referendum (truly democratic) it probably would have failed in at least two or three states (NC, TN, maybe Louisiana) never mind if they gave slaves a vote it would lose in almost all of them.

The Union had a duty to defend the interest of the United States and it's citizens, including and especially the Unionist still in the South. Even if they were fine with the South leaving, the Union would have a huge border with a contentious country, including having Washington DC in shelling range at all times.

Also I say all of this living in North Carolina.

>Chile
Always

Well, now you're talking in favor of it not being about slavery
Maybe i'm wrong about all this, but Charles Dickens, living at the time, thought it was horrendous too. So that kind'a makes you wonder if the good guys won, or if history was distorted to suit a purpose
I'll admit that i might be biased, since i really think the US is too big, and should be separated into different nations, or at least let the states govern themselves

Besides, even if the south left because of slavery, there is a certain scourge going around, about taking down statues and the likes of Confederate war heroes
They may have lost, and they may have supported something awful, but they were still people, and to just remove statues that have been around for over 100 years in some cases, and hide history like that, because som SJWs are triggered...

That just isn't acceptable in my opinion

How do you lie with such ease?

because it's the truth

>I'll admit that i might be biased, since i really think the US is too big, and should be separated into different nations, or at least let the states govern themselves

There is really little to no significant cultural difference between North Carolina and Massachusetts.

Sure, some different food specialties, accents, sporting interest but nothing culturally. Same thing goes for someone from Florida and someone from Maine.

Sherman did nothing wrong

>Chile
no

>There is really little to no significant cultural difference between North Carolina and Massachusetts.
>Sure, some different food specialties, accents, sporting interest but nothing culturally. Same thing goes for someone from Florida and someone from Maine.
To me it's not about culture, it's because i think the US is so big and too many people that ruling it as one single government will lead to troubles
Rome fell because it grew too big, and communication with all corners took too long.
Sure communication is better today, but USA is also bigger than Rome ever was

If there was less focus on the president, or even each state ruled themselves, the hierarchy wouldn't be so big, and it would be inherently easier to rule

I love understated German humor.

napoleon wars?

I can think of at least twice

This one.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkish_Abductions

Just pure pirate faggotry.

>Chile
Yes

You're only the bad guy if you lose :^))))))))))))))))))

not totally wrong

The Peruvians and Bolivians would probably want to have a word with you.

>Lebanon
no

>India

No

This desu I might ensue a disagreement

That was Serbia, or Russia depending on pov

What about a certain insurgency?

This one time, when we were Britain, we went a little too far and burned down some guys house. We're sorry for that. Want to get in on pissing off the Danes with us? It's fun! We go to this island, and drink their schnapps, then replace it with cheap rye.

USA has been the baddest of the bad guys. Expansionist and imperialistic.
>aus
If the US is the baddest of the bad guys then we're certainly bad for participating in so many wars.

have we even been in a war? lol 4 real tho

nigga what
you have plenty of wars

The people deciding who's the bad guy is the people who win wars

What insurgency?

>Italy
No
More specifically:
>Venice
Absolutely NEVER

post your scoreboard

>iraq war
>win
If the obective was to fuck up the country, then yeah, it was a victory

The Duke of Alba dindu nuffin
and Frundsberg was a sausage-loving Kraut

No Turks ITT
Good.

Mostly defensive wars, we were perfidiously attacked because people hated our liberté.

bad bait

Only a country like USA can put all his wars in a pic

Yes, during Napoleonic wars, 7 years war and Crimean wars

>Italy
no

>Venice
We defeated the Ottomans all alone, based kebab removing

you have to go back

>India
Yes
>WW2
>forced to side with britcucks

Let's not mention that, shall we? Let history be history and forgotten

>aquafresh
no

...

>netherlands
yes

Turley
No, we have never done evil :DDDDD

now I want some speed reee

So now blacks defending their liberte in Paris

Canada
Yes

NOOO
NOT THE SOUP, YOU MONSTERS

...

>UK
no

VERY good post

>Israel
no