Talk:List of wars involving Brazil

Husseins Chemical Weapons

Husseins Chemical Weapons were hidden at an Indonesian restaurant in Haiti for the purpose of the Obamification of the Dominican Republic. Obamification is against the law in the Dominican Republic.

All bullets are to be targeted against Husseins chemical weapons. Brazil has sent troops to Haiti and more troops will be required. Wipe out erasure. Crackdown on crack. Defend native victims of Obamification. Haiti has one of the lowest rates of forestation in the world and so tree poachers should be shot. Husseins chemical weapons are known to cause injury to both plants and humans including the infliction of torture. Shoot the torturers. No Brazilian should ever be tortured for any reason.

Respect for endangered plants and animals means that forced Obamification will have to receive the disrespect that it deserves. This means that military force is necessary to punish threats against endangered species.

Auto terrorists tried to pave Brazil and caused a tire fire that murdered endangered Brazilian mammals and a rare endangered condor. Kill those who delayed killing Harper.

The penalty for failing to protect an endangered condor is death. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.114.67.128 (talk) 18:25, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

The Entirety of the Colonial Section is in Portugeuse

Hey... I just noticed that the entire of the first section of the article is in Portuguese. I don't want to edit it because I haven't studied Portuguese itself and don't want to make an error. But it should be done. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Loremipsumsitdoloramet (talk • contribs) 13:04, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

And the lists of other countries do not shows the involvement in wars as a colony, therefore, it must be removed. Ottoman Editor (talk) 02:11, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Cabinda expedition

What is the Cabinda (Angola) expedition doing in this list? It doesn't seem to have nothing to do with the State of Brazil. I shall remove it. --SpaceEconomist192 ✐ 19:26, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Reverting/Undoing broken WikiTable edit.

I saw an edit with a broken wikitable. I am fixing by undoing the edit. If the IP-editor thinks that these changes were good, re-do them in a way that doesn't break the source code. But for now, i'm undoing them. 179.54.211.52 (talk) 19:31, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Brazil lost the cisplatine war to the Uruguayan/cisplatine rebels

The Cisplatine War resulted in Uruguay's independence from the Empire of Brazil. Therefore, it can be said that the side that sought independence, represented by the Uruguayan rebels and supported by the United Provinces of the Río de la Plata, was the winner of that war. Brazil lost control over the Cisplatina region, which later became the independent country of Uruguay. Therefore, it can be said that the Uruguayans won. Brazil aimed to maintain control of the territory of Uruguay but ended up allowing Uruguay to become independent and lost strategic control over what would be most of the Rio da Prata basin. From another page of wikipedia (https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guerra_da_Cisplatina): "The peace treaty between Brazil and the United Provinces came soon after, on August 28, 1828, at the price of the loss of the Cisplatina province (which became Uruguay), more than 30 million dollars in expenses and 8,000 Brazilians dead. Pedro I had his image deeply shaken by the end of the conflict that cost lives and resources unnecessarily and he was blamed for the dismemberment of the territory.[21] For his part, the emperor clearly realized that he could not trust the federalist liberals, who once again caused deaths that could have been avoided thanks to the defense of their own interests to the detriment of the Nation (similar to what happened in the Confederation of Ecuador that started during the War of Independence). The Cisplatine War played an important role in the abdication of Pedro I, by collaborating with his increased disrepute." Therefore, saying that the Uruguayan people did not win and did not conquer their space, but saying that there was a mere impasse is a lack of respect for the current Uruguayan people and their ancestors who fought for a republic and autonomy against an empire. References: (1) VAINFAS, Ronaldo. Dicionário do Brasil Imperial. Rio de Janeiro: Objetiva, 2002, p.322; (2) CARNEIRO, David. História da Guerra Cisplatina. São Paulo: Companhia Editora Nacional, 1946. Pg 38, 59, 70, 112 and 114; (3) Castellanos, La Cisplatina, la Independencia y la república caudillesca, pág. 73–77; (4) Juan Beverina (1927). La guerra contra el Imperio del Brasil (em espanhol). [S.l.]: Biblioteca del Oficial, Bs. As. (5) ARMITAGE, John. Historia do Brazil, desde a chegada da real família de Bragança, em 1808, até a abdicação do imperador D. Pedro I, em 1831. Trad. de Joaquim Teixeira de Macedo. Rio de Janeiro: Typ. Imp. e Const. de Villeneuve e Comp., 1837. pág. 173. (6) LUSTOSA, Isabel. D. Pedro I. São Paulo: Companhia das Letras, 2007, p.277. Gustavo Bosa (talk) 18:46, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

"Therefore, it can be said that the side that sought independence, represented by the Uruguayan rebels and supported by the United Provinces of the Río de la Plata, was the winner of that war".

No, this is not correct. The "Uruguayans" were not fighting for their independence, but rather to become part of the United Provinces. On 25 August 1825 they declared their independence from Brazil and their union with the United Provinces. The Argentine Congress proclaimed the Cisplatina province reintegrated into the United Provinces on 25 October 1825.

Brazil formally declared war on the United Provinces (Argentina) on 10 December 1825, not on Uruguay, as it did not exist.

Uruguayan independence was proposed by Pedro I and the british mediator and agreed by Brazil and Argentina, it was not imposed on any of them, as it would normally happen had there been a defeated party, and there were no Uruguayan representatives on the negotiations table either, since, as I said before, it did not yet formally exist as an independent state.

So, in short, neither side achieved its wargoal. Brazil did not keep Cisplatina, the United Provinces did not annex it and independence was not their goal. Therefore, having neither side achieved its wargoal, neither side won. Torimem (talk) 19:04, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

• Carneiro, David (1946). História da Guerra Cisplatina (PDF) (in Portuguese). São Paulo: Companhia Editora Nacional.
• Calmon, Pedro (2002). História da Civilização Brasileira (PDF) (in Portuguese). Brasilia: Senado Federal.
• Randig, Rodrigo Wiese (2017). "Argentina, primeiro país a reconhecer a independência do Brasil" (PDF). Cadernos do CHDD. 16 (31). Fundação Alexandre de Gusmão: 501–524.

Torimem (talk) 19:04, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

This is the same as saying that the American revolution ended in stalemate for England because the United States did not yet exist, even though England had lost territory and control over a population. Gustavo Bosa (talk) 19:10, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

By this logic, in fact, Argentina did not lose any territory it already possessed before the Cisplatine War, unlike Brazil which, as I said, lost part of its territory. Gustavo Bosa (talk) 19:15, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Furthermore, I quote precisely a reference that Torimem used, in which he says: "Let's go back: The constant study of our military history always takes us to the Paraguay campaign. victory of our soldiers. On the other hand, we passed by wide in the Cisplatine Campaign in which we were sadly defeated." Translated from the original: "Voltemos atrás: O estudo constante da nossa história militar nos leva sempre à campanha do Paraguai . Conhecemo-la nos mais mínimos detalhes, e tornamo-nos orgulhosos com a vitória dos nossos soldados. Em compensação, passamos de largo na Campanha Cisplatina em que fomos tristemente derrotados." Gustavo Bosa (talk) 19:32, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Carneiro, David (1946). História da Guerra Cisplatina (PDF) (in Portuguese). São Paulo: Companhia Editora Nacional Pg 9-10. Gustavo Bosa (talk) 19:33, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

No, it's not the same and this is not what I'm arguing at all, you simpy ignored the point. Uruguayans wanted to become part of the United Provinces, this was their goal and that of the Argentines, by the end of the war they did not achieve their goal neither did Argentina. No side did. It's simple as that.

"By this logic, in fact, Argentina did not lose any territory it already possessed before the Cisplatine War, unlike Brazil which, as I said, lost part of its territory."

The Argentine goal was to annex Cisplatina, did they manage to annex Cisplatina? No. Look at a world map today, is Uruguay an Argentine province? No. Is it a Brazilian state? No. How can a state whose Congress proclaimed a foreign territory reintegrated into their dominion and ended up with nothing it wanted claim to have won anything? How can the Uruguayans claim to have "won" if their manifest goal was to become an Argentine province and this did not happen? By twisting your own logic one could say Brazil won the war, since it prevented its oponents goals from happening, which needless to say is absurd.

Uruguayan independence was a compromise that none of the parties wanted at the beginning of the war, but were forced to accept due to the war's progression negatively affecting both beligerents, hence, the result of the war was a stalemate. Torimem (talk) 20:49, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

No. You who ignored and totally distorted what I said. I never said that Argentina won. All I've been trying to say, from the beginning, was that the conflict was won by Uruguay, which became an independent nation, instituted a republic where before it was part of Brazil. And returning to the book that you quoted and that I used as a reference that says in all the letters that we lost to Uruguay, it also quotes: "In 1810, the congress of Tucuman declared free and independent the United Provinces of the River Plate, formed by elements of the former Viceroyalty of same name, that is, by current Argentina, by Alto Peru (Bolivia); by Paraguay and Uruguay. Uruguay at first subordinated itself to the Board of Directors or Government of Buenos Aires. Early on, however, Artigas dreamed of an independent state that would have capital of his hometown, Montevideo, the state that should be constituted from current Uruguay, from Rio Grande of the South and the Argentine provinces of Entre Rios, Corrientes and Missions.

Artigas began by rebelling against the Spaniards, and beat them. Then he had to beat the Argentines, who were opposed to his dreams of freedom for a province that should be, according to the Porteños, Confederate only, not independent. But Artigas beat the Argentines, as he beat the Spanish people. The Battle of Las Piedras he was able to join in the list of his victories the battle of Guaiabos. One enemy remained to be defeated: Poriugal, but Portugal with its new seat of government in Rio de Jaineiro. Against this enemy, Artigas could not. For seven long years the liberator, the admirable caudillo, the excellent dreamer fought; but ended up being defeated, after Catalan and Taquarembó. Cisplatina became Portuguese..." (pg 13-14). That is, the Uruguayans already had the desire to be an autonomous nation even before Brazil's independence. After Brazil became independent and the war was fought, the opportunity arose again, from which they clearly emerged victorious. Here's another excerpt from the same book quoted by you: "But it is undeniable that Brazil lost the match for Uruguay and not for Argentina. Because if the dream of taking the frontier to the Plata has collapsed, for the Empire, there is no doubt. that, likewise,

the Argentine dream of pushing back the limits beyond the Plata vanished, likewise, never again." (pg 235).

Therefore, everything I'm saying could be resolved by editing the page as follows: stalemate between Argentina and Brazil, Uruguay's victory and independence.

Carneiro, David (1946). History of the Cisplatine War (PDF) (in Portuguese). Sao Paulo: Companhia Editora Nacional Gustavo Bosa (talk) 21:45, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

I will not make any further comments on the topic. Let other editors express their views/opinions/arguments, but keep the article as it is until then. If most agree on one or another position then so will be it and I won't make any objection. Torimem (talk) 21:57, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

3O Response: My own initial thought is that since the war was between Argentina and Brazil, and neither one of the two ultimately retained control over the disputed territory, the result was indeed in essence a draw between them. Perhaps one could also fairly state that those who wanted Uruguayan independence won against both the Argentinians and Brazilians, as ultimately their objective was achieved. However, it doesn't matter as much what I think, or what any other editor thinks. What do reliable sources most commonly state about the outcome? Ultimately, that is what the article will need to reflect. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:34, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

(Machado 2017, p. 64): "In a reversal of the developments of 1826, when the Argentines had won at Passo do Rosário, in 1827 Pedro I’s naval forces resisted and took the conflict to a stalemate. As the prolonged war was causing important financial losses for European merchants, the British pushed for a diplomatic solution".

• Machado, Roberto Pinheiro (2017). Brazilian History: Culture, Society, Politics 1500-2010 (PDF). Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. ISBN 978-1-5275-0349-6.

Torimem (talk) 19:59, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Combining

Instead of having so many different topics It should be seperated Like combining Vargas Era and Dictatorship ArgesVenges (talk) 13:56, 14 November 2024 (UTC)