It depends if it was an offensive or defensive war. Mongrel countries do not have a will to fight.
Nicholas Edwards
kek
Kayden Jones
>Brazil could absolutely rape Portugal.
Ayden Allen
>Brazil could absolutely rape Portugal. [citation needed]
Caleb Stewart
There is more to wars than numbers burger, just because you are shit warriors doesnt mean the rest of us are like you.
Ayden Lee
who cares how powerful they are if they complete shitholes
Jayden Cruz
Crimea river
Colton Cooper
>just because you are shit warriors We never lost a war except Vietnam, which was not a military but a political defeat caused by traitorous leftists.
Brayden Clark
>Ain't it funny how times change? 100 years ago it would take months for your shitpost to reach the other side of the world, in a poorly worded letter. Funny how industry reshapes the world.
Wew, good one bru.
Leo Gonzalez
>which was not a military but a political defeat It was a complete failure on all fronts, you dumb fucking LARPing teenager. Get your head out of the endless depths of your arse.
Ian Hall
it doesn't matter how mighty military forces a country has since the end of WW2. Once it has a stable and strong economy and its people are just living well, nothing else matters, i believe
Ethan Ortiz
Bullying third world shitholes when you are America is not an impressive act. The only war i rate you in was against Japan in WW2, ill give you that one.
Connor Wright
>Mongrel countries do not have a will to fight This is what ethnonationalists actually believe btw, he's not trying to be funny.
Blake Nguyen
Didn't we go into that war too or something?
Matthew Carter
Big powers don't directly go to war since 1945, they fight proxy wars, of which Vietnam was one.
Aiden Thomas
funny Stralyun
Brazil, please ABSOLUTELY RAPE Poortugal
the last time Poortugal's ass was kicked by Indians:
you have also lost in Afg-stan, I live very near, I know how miserably the burgers have lost, even after a trillion dollars and many lives not to speak of the hundreds thousands of your burger soldiers wounded
Samuel Gonzalez
This Paki has to be one of the more pathetic trolls Sup Forums has seen. Go make another thread about bleaching your skin white.
Camden Foster
Are you from Peshawar or somewhere near?
Aaron Peterson
>100 years ago no one could defeat Russia
i guess some things don't change
Andrew Bennett
I was wondering...who will you marry? Your sister or your cousin?
Luke Williams
Do you honestly think portugal would have a chance? No nuclear weapon and they outnumber you 100:1. There's no inhibitable environment in Portugal either, no pesky jungles.
Cooper Lopez
Oh, see who is talking on stability. You live in Korea. At any time a war can occur there.
Don't be too naive. Also remember your country only exists because of American help. Thousand of people died just to save that little peninsula.
Jordan Sanchez
>100 years ago, Britain would kick the shit out of the US or India in terms of military force. For India it was 50/50. We had a slight technology gap but it was mainly due to good political maneuvering, cooperating with the princely states to subjugate the other states that didn't want to just regularly pay shekels for independence and pure situational coincidence (Aurengzab tanking the empire/the Maratha confederacy declining after the third battle of Panipat) that they were able to become incorporated into the empire. For America... well I don't Britain was ever more powerful than America post independence desu.
Jonathan Perry
well.. at least we haven't gone through a hyperinflation like the one Brasil experienced, which devastated your country's economy. go see your country's credit rating. It's way lower than that of Korea dude. I'm not saying Korea is the best country in the world but at least, in terms of economy, it's not that bad as you think
Kevin Sullivan
I think that if Brazil invaded Portugal they would get BTFO'd and i also believe that if Portugal invaded Brazil we would get BTFO'd We have uranium and the expertise to make nuclear weapons, so in an extreme case we could just make them.
Blake Wilson
Yup, somewhere near Since you are Superior Russian brother, let me tell you something that would give the burger an ass burning diarrhea
I have seen with my own eyes burger SOP-MOD weapons taken by the Kaliban after killing their seals and commando units
the shops were once littered with such things, even until a few years ago
things with names of burger soldiers on them, Sgt. this, Captain that, and I am not even joking
more than a 100,000 soldiers have been seriously injured or disfigured the latest ones being killed:
everyone knows the burgers have lost miserably in Afg-stan
so has NATO BBC even did a recent report on this most of the country is now ruled by the Kaliban a province which the brits gave so many of their soldier's lives is now once again conquered and ruled by the Kaliban you can see it in this report:
Well, that's what happens when you put a commie in the presidence. The same would occur there if were not by Americans. ;) Who cares for economy when I don't know if I'll be living tomorrow?
Dominic Bailey
America's entire industry was pretty much founded on spying and industrial espionage in Britain
Gavin Sullivan
Points of my posts being, even if you a trillion DOLLAZ, a large modern army and a lot of nations that you have cuckolded, doesnt necessarily mean you will win
NATO and burgers have lost in Afg-stan and everyone knows it its just not promoted or announced on burger media like CNN etc.
stupid teenager you still have alot to learn
if this is the only line of defense you will hide behind then you have proven the points against you anyways, I think you should be a province of Spain Portugal doesnt need a separate existence
Gavin Parker
with that poor economy, even living present would be such a pain. Plus, your country also has to do something about the drug cartels lurking around every corner of the cities in Brasil so it's no surprise that you don't give a shit about the economy cos nobody can tell when and where you can be abducted and trafficked by one of those cartels.
Connor Evans
>anyways, I think you should be a province of Spain >Portugal doesnt need a separate existence
You mean Portugal should be a province or off shore colony of Brazil right ?!!
Brandon Fisher
line of defense? Yeah we lost against India, we had a small enclave in a country with a billion people, what did you expect? For us to sink billions and thousand of lives for a place that isnt worth it? All countries win and lose wars, tell me a country with 100% win ratio. Also you didnt anwser me, your sister or your cousin?
Julian Watson
proof/ reference/ book?
Lincoln Nelson
UK could definitely cripple the poos and the poos wouldn't get anywhere near the UK.
The poos don't have functioning SLBMs.
Aaron Murphy
>tell me a country with 100% win ratio. Chile
Ryan Davis
Japan was a freakshow failed state that couldn't defeat a China in civil war.
Nolan Rivera
All those cartals come from commie organizations too. You're a true naive. Fuck off, gook.
Samuel Lee
Hope you're gonna be fine and don't forget to bring a pistol with you whenever you go out to protect urself from the drug cartel members :D adios amigo
Joshua Davis
why would UK war with India or Pakistan former colonies, same state laws and language, large expat population, the benefit from our large population markets and vice versa
If anything except for the tension we have with the Indians these 3 countries could have been a commonwealth super market
Infact UK should think about this, creating a commonwealth super market after Brexit
Blake Rivera
UK doesn't want more poos and muslims.
Chase Martinez
Look up Francis Lowell and Samuel Slater or read any book on 18th C industrial espionage
Jacob Turner
I'm not in Colombia. Do you even know the difference between them?
Cameron Ortiz
No, they are right. The most likely mental to fire a noooc is that chubby best Korea leader and there are only two countries he is gonna aim his kaboom at.
Guess which one of those 2 is like a minute away in missssile time?
your country mate. Have you booked your noooklear bunker yet?
Nathan Roberts
Not much difference between them in that there are a shitload of drug cartels.
Hunter Hill
Really hope Kim Jong un nukes exactly where you live. >:D
Sebastian Torres
That's exactly why we had the US deploy THAAD, theater of high altitude area defense missiles, to shoot down the North Korean missiles. And it's highly unlikely that NK would ever push the button to launch the nukes. If it were to do so, it wouldn't be heading to Korea but to the US or the US military bases around many countries, which is why North Korea's this obsessed with developing ICBM to hit the mainland of the US directly.
Ian Baker
"it doesn't matter how mighty military forces a country has since the end of WW2. Once it has a stable and strong economy and its people are just living well, nothing else matters, i believe"
oh boi
Xavier Long
>100 years ago, Britain would kick the shit out of the US or India in terms of military force.
Not really. Britain in 1917 was incredibly weak and had been bled white by a war for more than 3 years. If in some crazy hypothetical scenario, you took Britain on June 15, 2017, and the US on June 15, 2017, told everyone else to stop fighting, and said "ok then, you two go at it", the US would have won.
Christopher Ortiz
no end to the satisfaction of realising rich white people in europe thought they were god's gift and that europe was eden itself only to get BTFO when they discovered continents bigger and more diverse
Austin Hernandez
1917 britain would never have beat the USA
hell, britain couldn't even beat 1700 USA.
John Flores
>hell, britain couldn't even beat 1700 USA.
The US didn't exist in 1700....and your country comfortably beat us in 1812 while simultaneously dealing with Napoleon. I think the threshold of "UK can't beat the US" was crossed sometime in the late 1800s, but the US couldn't have beaten the UK until the early 1900s, probably just after WWI.
Austin Walker
The US was losing in a war they enjoyed numerical and strategic superiority in until the French intervened.
Alexander Harris
>The US was losing in a war they enjoyed numerical and strategic superiority >numerical
Not really, only about 1/3 of the American people were actually behind the war effort. Another 1/3 were British loyalists and the final 1/3 just wanted everyone to stop fighting. The US only really enjoyed numerical superiority (ironically) in New England, and in any case it was hopelessly outmatched by the British when it came to cash and weapons. The new American currency, the continental dollar, was so worthless that you needed a wheelbarrow of the stuff to buy food. Not to mention vast differences in training, the Continental Army was basically a small number of half-trained ex-British officers leading farmboys.
Nicholas Lopez
>Brazil could absolutely rape Portugal.
Do they even have any military? If so - why are they still one the most dangerous countries to live? If their military can't even fix this how can they conquer anything?
Dylan Wilson
It'd be more of a stalemate I guess
Easton Garcia
The colonies had almost no industry or any way to supply a real army, Ben Franklin suggested half-seriously that "We may need to go back to the bow-and-arrow."
Jaxson Lee
>and your country comfortably beat us in 1812 No they didn't. The Duke of Wellington even said the war was not winnable, they'd just get swallowed up in the endless American wilderness.
Mason Hughes
They comfortably beat us militarily, is what I meant. The US had no real victory other than the Battle of New Orleans (which technically occurred after the war ended). I'm not saying that the UK could have swooped in and re-annexed everything, only that they can and did comfortably defeat the US military, and had they not been distracted by the French the final settlement would have been much worse for us. Heck, the fact that you're quoting the Duke of Wellington kind of sums it up, since he was a little preoccupied at the time with some Corsican midget.
Jason Reyes
Good thing we only conquered shitholes. We fuck the entire Maghreb anyday
Ryan Watson
UK dodnt care about worthless land at the time, tge US only became powerful in the 1870s, they could have easily annexed it if they wanted to no one in the continent had any reason to fight britain, even ben franklin realized ultimately all that mattered were the colonies rights not do much not being in union with britain.
Luis Williams
>The only war i rate you in was against Japan in WW2, ill give you that one. >lose a massive chunk of your navy >nuke them into surrendering because they couldn't win a conventional war
Henry Price
Not entirely true, the US in 1865 technically had the world's largest army and it was fairly well equipped, enough that the US threat to intervene on Mexico's behalf against the French was taken as a serious concern by Napoleon III. The US in the 1870s was dramatically weaker due to mass demobilization after the war and the fact that our remaining forces were busy with the Plains Indians, it wasn't until the 1890s that the country really started building up its military power again.
Logan Taylor
>you have also lost in Afg-stan, I live very near >So you live in the shittiest part? >, I know how miserably the burgers have lost, even after a trillion dollars and many lives not to speak of the hundreds thousands of your burger soldiers wounded Yes, the Taliban is in power, the NA lost and bin Laden is alive. If you're referring to be it being a violent shithole it was before we arrived.
Josiah Bennett
The Japanese navy didn't exactly perform admirably in the Pacific.
Jonathan Richardson
The US had already won the conventional war. The IJN was non-existent, the IJA was either trapped in Manchuria or a collection of barely-trained soldiers in Japan itself. The nukes were dropped to end the war faster. There was no doubt the US had already won for all intents and purposes, but nobody wanted the inevitably high casualties of a full-scale invasion of Japan itself (look up the plans for yourself, they ordered so many Purple Hearts that we still haven't run out). The option of mining harbors, bombing infrastructure, and watching all the Japs starve was also considered, but was dropped due to a lack of popularity (only 30% of Americans supported genocide against the Japanese in 1945).
The US had total air and naval superiority by 1945, the only question was "do we invade, do we starve them out and kill them all (Lemay's plan), or do we drop a couple nukes and try to scare them into unconditional surrender?".
Oliver Ross
There was a conventional war. The Japs got hammered.
The nuke was just the icing on the murder-cake.
Zachary Sanders
>more than a 100,000 soldiers have been seriously injured or disfigured Wow why don't you make some more shit up.
I know a lot of people who fought there and they are fine but think afghans are disgusting (we aren't huge fans of boy fucking).
Michael Cox
US population 1790 4 million US population 1860 36 million this is around when US became a major power. US power becomes stagnant as white population becomes stagnant and increases once white population increases.
Aiden Reyes
>US population 1860 36 million this is around when US became a major power.
I disagree. In the 1860s the US had the opportunity to become a major power but essentially chose not to become one. The US didn't become a major power until the 1890s.
>US power becomes stagnant as white population becomes stagnant and increases once white population increases.
.....ok, Sup Forums. The white population is still increasing.
Xavier Stewart
>Japan was a freakshow failed state that couldn't defeat a China in civil war. But they weren't they had colonies, a powerful navy, industry, scientific advances and defeated the regional European colonial powers. They also moved a lot of forces from China to fight us and China had U.S. support.
Juan Sanders
>Brazil could absolutely rape Portugal.
Lol. No. Nothing would happen.
Neither country has any capability to project and support any kind of expeditionary force.
Evan Price
American history books of the 19th century always depicted the War of 1812 as a victory, modern historians generally regard it as a stalemate.
Charles Foster
BRING. HER. BACK.
Evan Jones
>modern AMERICAN historians generally regard it as a stalemate. Important detail there. The rest of the world unanimously agrees you guys lost. Although I suppose even admitting a draw is big step for Americans, so well done on that.
Ryder Wood
>American history books of the 19th century always depicted the War of 1812 as a victory
I think it really depends on how you look at it. It was a victory in the sense that the US got what it wanted: control of New Orleans, a settlement of the Orders in Council, a settlement over border disputes in the Old Northwest....it's strange, despite failing utterly in almost every military engagement, the US came out of the War of 1812 with almost everything it wanted (unless you were one of those retarded Senators who wanted to annex Canada).
Austin Hernandez
Fuck off paki scum
Asher Hernandez
>the US came out of the War of 1812 with almost everything it wanted HOW FUCKING DELUSIONAL CAN ONE COUNTRY BE.
Nathaniel Cruz
>Brazil could rape Portugal
Good luck crossing the ocean on timber boats. Good luck landing anywhere near our coastline. Good luck even trying to conquer Azores or Madeira. Good luck to Brazil's troops fed on SOPA that can barely hold a fucking rifle.
The only thing I respect from Brazil's military is their MP and BOPE and even our equivalents (GNR and GOE) could give them a run for their money.
also >USA >get defeated by communist rice farmers >hurrr durrr not true defeat wuz political n shiz Half your fucking military were on opion or in whore houses and when it was time to fight they ran or fucked up massivle.
Hunter Perry
The U.S. invented snipers than and did pretty well with guerilla warfare. The entire conflict leading to the British withdrawal if Boston had shown it wasn't going to be easy for the British.
Blake Martin
>Brazil could absolutely rape Portugal That's assuming they can land in Portugal
Ayden Roberts
>The rest of the world unanimously agrees you guys lost.
Do they really? Because that doesn't seem reasonable. If you look at American goals heading into the war, they were all achieved (except, again, the handful of retards who wanted Canada). It's a fact that Britain dominated most battles....but isn't that, in a lot of ways, similar to what happened with the US in Vietnam? The US pummeled the NV military, killing 2 million Vietnamese while "only" losing 50,000 soldiers, but everyone still agrees that the US lost the war because Vietnam achieved its goals but the US did not.
It seems like a strange double standard to regard the War of 1812 as a British victory, when the war literally began with your government acquiescing to American demands (although unfortunately, because of how slow news traveled in those days, by the time we found out that you guys had given us 50% of what we wanted we had already been at war for two weeks).
But it did. The Orders in Council were repealed. The British finally left the Old Northwest (although you had agreed to do so all the way back in 1894, you kind of dragged your heels). You stopped supporting indians fighting against us. You were kept out of New Orleans (again, it's ironic that our biggest and arguably only real victory in the war came a few days after the war ended, but nobody involved in the battle new that because news was slow as shit back then).
I'm not pretending that the US destroyed Britain and won some great victory, but it did achieve nearly all of its goals. I wouldn't call 1812 a victory, I'd call it "Britain letting us off with a warning because they were busy", but it wasn't a defeat either.
Noah Martin
>The entire conflict leading to the British withdrawal if Boston had shown it wasn't going to be easy for the British.
Not easy, but they surely would have won had it not been for French and Spanish intervention. The US simply had no answer for the power of Britain's military, especially when it came to the Navy. You ever wonder why our only famous naval revolutionary story is about a guy commanding a ship called the Bonhomme Richard?
Kevin Lee
>The rest of the world unanimously agrees you guys lost >the rest of the world I doubt anyone outside the US and Canada has any awareness that this war ever happened.
Mason Jackson
Impressment didn't stop. You didn't annex Canada. Those were the goals, and you didn't achieve them.
Saying you achieved 'nearly all' of your goals is so fucking mind-blowingly retarded, it's the kind of statement only an American could make. Truly amazing.
Ayden Perry
That would be like the Vietnam War since Hanoi in the end got what they wanted, which was control of the whole cunt, despite losing every important battlefield engagement.
Asher Harris
The goal of the war wasn't to annex Canada, that was a side quest. It was primarily to stop British impressment of sailors.
Aiden Johnson
Not really most of the war were raids, assaults, ambushes and Indians massacring villages. When the naval battles were small. The British failed as often as the Americans. Wellington was right the amount of territory and wilderness made it difficult.
Logan Ross
>The goal of the war wasn't to annex Canada Myth made up by Americans after the war. At the start, annexation of Canada was absolutely the goal. There's plenty of evidence on the internet, go read it. >It was primarily to stop British impressment of sailors. Which again, didn't stop.
Isaac Myers
The goals were to stop the Orders in Council, stop the Brits from supporting constant Indian massacres of Americans, keeping the British out of the Old Northwest, keeping the British out of New Orleans, and stopping impressment. 4 out of 5, not bad for a country that objectively got our ass kicked in almost every
No, it was primarily to stop the Orders in Council. Impressment was a political tool to get the people riled up.