The Stupidest War in History?

[Horsefish]

I'v got a new one. world war 2

Definitely not. It was needed, compared to World War 1.

GAHH WHY DO I BOTHER?

[Zairoon]

The Black War. WWII and Vietnam also rank pretty high up.

[The Rich Port]

Anything involving Capitalism v. Communism is pointless from the start, sort of like every Capitalism v. Communism debate that's started on NS (we all know Communism wins /end bad troll joke), since it involves an ideology based on exploitation fighting against an ideology that has, so far, facilitated exploitation.

But I'm certain there's a bunch of dumb wars I've never even heard of.

[Rubrum Natio]

I'd say first is World War One. Next was Iraq because Bush wanted to disarm suspected nuclear weapons that STILL HAVEN'T BEEN FOUND to this day. Next I'd say Afghanistan.

1.WWI
2.War in Iraq
3.War in Afghanistan

[The Republic of Greenland]

korean, that one got nowhere besides a weird regime using north korea.

Without a war from the UN/ US side then North would have taken South. We would have lost one of the asian tigers dammit!

[Greater Evil Imperial Japanese Dystopia]

Iraq
Vietnam
Afghanistan
Korea
World War I
Napoleonic Wars (started well for Napoleon, then began to go stupid ever since his failed campaign in Russia)

[Favinnystan]

WW1 Iraq And Afghanistan Falklands war

[Pope Joan]

WW1. It brings me to tears, at times.

Another that makes me weep is the Thirty Years' War.

It had one advantage; by the time it was over no one wanted to fight about their beliefs for a long time.

[Aesthetica]

WW1 Iraq And Afghanistan Falklands war

Just out of interest why do you classify the Falklands as a stupid war, and stupidity by who?

[Rhodosea]

War of the Stray Dog

[Aesthetica]

WW1. It brings me to tears, at times.

Another that makes me weep is the Thirty Years' War.

It had one advantage; by the time it was over no one wanted to fight about their beliefs for a long time.

By the time it was over, a lot of people couldn't fight over their beliefs for a longtime...

In some places, not only had they run out of powder and shot, and swords and pikes, and sticks and rocks, but they were even beginning to run out of people...

[Every single body of water]

Iraq. The second time. I mean, why invade a country for oil?!? I know the government tells us it was because they had WMDs, but seriously? No. It was for the oil and innocent lives for both countries were lost because of it.

[Eywan]

WWI, America wasn't even attacked nor had allies, but held neutral. The only thing that was attacked were the American markets. Plus, the ally system completely screwed over everyone. Not to mention the other factors: imperialism, militarism, and nationalism.

[Terrakristovia]

crimean war was pretty stupid

[Cylarn]

Children's Crusade was pretty stupid.

Agreed. Hell, most of the children were either sold into slavery or slaughtered by the Saracens.

[Pope Joan]

crimean war was pretty stupid

Agreed; I am surprised it had not yet been mentioned.

[Lemurian Islands]

The Stupidest was certainly the Falklands War. I mean it was just a coupe of small islands and sheep! It was just Thatcher's way of regaining popularity from the nationalist fervor.

[Ruridova]

The Falklands War. It was a desperate attempt by an Argentinian dictator to regain popularity so he wasn't overthrown, and his idea was to start a war, inspiring patriotism and thus support. It really gets credit for the fact that Thatcher went crazy over the two windswept piles of nothing that Argentina had taken, and I'm pretty sure the number of casualties from the war was larger than the population of the islands at the time.

[Tsrill]

As I see it, in the end there are two types of war: wars for loot and wars for independence/against oppression. The former type is generally stupid.

[Aesthetica]

The Falklands War. It was a desperate attempt by an Argentinian dictator to regain popularity so he wasn't overthrown, and his idea was to start a war, inspiring patriotism and thus support. It really gets credit for the fact that Thatcher went crazy over the two windswept piles of nothing that Argentina had taken, and I'm pretty sure the number of casualties from the war was larger than the population of the islands at the time.

We should have left British citizens to be oppressed and robbed by foreigners? We didn't ASK them to invade, they decided to do that all by themselves.

Casualties:
Them:
649 killed
1,068 wounded
11,313 taken prisoner

Us:
258 killed
775 wounded
115 taken prisoner

Falklands population is currently about 3000.

[Ruridova]

The Falklands War. It was a desperate attempt by an Argentinian dictator to regain popularity so he wasn't overthrown, and his idea was to start a war, inspiring patriotism and thus support. It really gets credit for the fact that Thatcher went crazy over the two windswept piles of nothing that Argentina had taken, and I'm pretty sure the number of casualties from the war was larger than the population of the islands at the time.

We should have left British citizens to be oppressed and robbed by foreigners? We didn't ASK them to invade, they decided to do that all by themselves.

Casualties:
Them:
649 killed
1,068 wounded
11,313 taken prisoner

Us:
258 killed
775 wounded
115 taken prisoner

Falklands population is currently about 3000.

And the population in the 70s and 80s?

Also: I'm not disputing that it was Argentina's fault. I don't really think that it was worth the trouble for either sides.

[Aesthetica]

We should have left British citizens to be oppressed and robbed by foreigners? We didn't ASK them to invade, they decided to do that all by themselves.

Casualties:
Them:
649 killed
1,068 wounded
11,313 taken prisoner

Us:
258 killed
775 wounded
115 taken prisoner

Falklands population is currently about 3000.

And the population in the 70s and 80s?

Also: I'm not disputing that it was Argentina's fault. I don't really think that it was worth the trouble for either sides.

Dont have the figures to hand, about 60 odd percent is Falklander, the rest are there for the oil exploration. As for being worth the trouble, should we have left our people in enemy hands?

[Virabia]

All of them.

[Zairoon]

All of them.

Ooh. Deep.

[Ruridova]

And the population in the 70s and 80s?

Also: I'm not disputing that it was Argentina's fault. I don't really think that it was worth the trouble for either sides.

Dont have the figures to hand, about 60 odd percent is Falklander, the rest are there for the oil exploration. As for being worth the trouble, should we have left our people in enemy hands?

Let's see, since this was an unstable dictatorship with many enemies in the nation that ran the country less than well and was about to collapse, even if the Argentinian leader had been able to become ever-so-slightly more popular?
Yes, because when the government was overthrown in a couple of years, the Falkands would simply rejoin Britain as any occupying troops would be putting down a revolution. Thus, you keep the islands in the end and you get an ally in the new Argentinian government because they helped you get your barren windswept piles of nothing back from the previous regime. And if support is gained, just act like your ally the US and fund the rebels so that you can regain he Islands.

Ta-daaa. Problem solved.