The Stupidest War in History?

[New England and The Maritimes]

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.

No. A "revolution" would have cost far more lives than the actual invasion. That being said, the US wouldn't "fund rebels" if someone invaded Guam, they would let the missiles lose and drive a nuclear aircraft carrier up the aggressor's ass.

[Gigaverse]

For democracy.

I agree, stupid.

The communists started it first... And look who rules Vietnam now.

Vietnam had a terrible economy before communism arrived now that it has risen it has a great economy,what does that tell you?EDIT:and it started as a war between north and south vietnam america had no business there.

Well, I agree about the economic thing. What I meant was, the communists started the Vietnam War first (still need more information), and actually, America was a strong supporter of the South in the Vietnam War.
Also, Vietnam currently doesn't say they are communists (I live there, for a price). The word "communist" and "communism", in fact, does not even appear very often, with the exception of the News, which always have at least one news about the Communist party; and the History books, which referred to Ho Chi Minh as "the first Vietnamese communist". Other than that, it's always socialist over here, socialist over there, blah blah blah...
For a more specific information, communism arrived in Vietnam in about 1925, and officially ruled Vietnam in 1945. This new shape of Vietnam's economy had just recently appeared since... (well, what do you know...) 2000. That's why I'm sitting here, typing this stuff, talking about economy, politics and manga... If they didn't change their policies around 1984, my country would just be another [TYPE a country that you will never want to live there HERE].

[Zersium]

Every war.

[Central Lothian]

Apologies if it's already been mentioned, but the Anglo-Zanzibar War has to be mentioned because of its length - 38 minutes.

[Hazcheese]

Bombardment of Kagoshima (also knownas Anglo-Satsuma War). If you want a quick summary:

British nationals were attacked (one killed, two wounded) by Satsuma samurai for not showing the proper respect for a daimyo (Shimazu Hisamitsu).

The naval bombardment claimed just five lives among the people of Satsuma (the city had been evacuated in anticipation of the conflict), and 13 lives among the British (including Captain Josling of the British flagship Euryalus, and his second-in-command Commander Wilmot, both decapitated by the same cannonball).

After this Satsuma negotiated and paid ₤25,000 (I've been told £16,000,000 in mondern money)(I think thats about $25,000,000) which they borrowed from the bakufu (Tokugawa Shogunate).
Satsuma and Britain then made a trade agreement, and the reparation received was enough to obtain an agreement by Britain to supply steam warships to Satsuma.

Satsuma then pulls a massive backstab and rebels against the bakufu. Satsuma and Britain, became major allies in the ensuing Boshin War which ends up with the Emporer in power, and all of this happens without the Satsuma Domain paying back a single grain of rice to the bakufu for the money they payed in compensation to Britain

[Haydn]

1. WW2
2. Vietnam
3. WW1

[Hazcheese]

1. WW2
2. Vietnam
3. WW1

In order?

[Al-Harakut al-Islami]

I would say World War I.

It was a war over nationalism, and that was...really all. No injustice to correct (save colonialism, but all parties involved did that).

Archduke Ferdinand's assassination was just used to justify it, even though Ferdinand was an advocate for peace.

The only good thing that came out of it was literature. Hitler came to power as a result of the (also completely stupid) punishments placed on Germany after the war ended. The Middle East and Africa as we know it also came about as a result of the war and the colonialist empires who occupied those parts of the world.

Neither side was better than the other. For example, the Germans may have raped Belgium, but the British had been raping India. The Ottomans may have committed a genocide against the Armenians, but their opponents were colonialist empires and the Wahhabi Arabs who would go on to found Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states.

[Haydn]

1. WW2
2. Vietnam
3. WW1

In order?

No

[Ainin]

1) The war that was fought over the shooting of a pig (The Pig War)
2) The failed invasion of a nation due to ideology (The Vietnam War)
3) The invasion of a nation over nonexistant WMDs (The Iraq War)
4) The war fueled by nothing but revenge (Afghan War)

Something interesting is that all four of these wars had a thing in common. That thing starts with A and ends with merica. [satire]What do you think it is?[/satire]

[Kanslavia]

The Quasi-War

We were bros with France before why did they start acting like jerks to us?

[Al-Harakut al-Islami]

I notice that a lot of people said "Children's Crusade" here.

As I understand it, the Children's Crusade wasn't really a crusade or even a war. It was more like missionary activity than anything else. Although it was pretty stupid to think that you can go all the way into the heartland of Islam and convert all the Muslims to Christianity, it isn't a war.

[Gigaverse]

1. WW2
2. Vietnam
3. WW1

In order?

WW1, WW2, and Vietnam.

And again, Vietnam War was not stupid.

[Gigaverse]

The war that was fought over the shooting of a pig (The Pig War)

That. Just that. And the Anglo-Zanzibar War.

[Israslovakahzerbajan]

The war that was fought over the shooting of a pig (The Pig War)

That. Just that. And the Anglo-Zanzibar War.

A pig...That hog must be in hog-heaven to be regarded so highly.

[Germanic Templars]

id say the cold war but there was no fighting,so id go with WW2 becouse i dont think america really had any reason to invade europe as hitler declared war on america as part of his pact with japan.

Duh, when America declared war on Japan, Germany and the rest of the Axis power declared war on America.

[Republica Federal de Catalunya]

Oranges war (1801). (Yes is real and the name of the war reffers to the fruit). Also the Spanish - Russian war.

[Industrial Septagon]

The war of 1812 without a doubt.

The war was fought for no reason, it served no purpose and in the end the treaty made it so that nothing changed.

Except for the dead men who fought for nothing at all.

I mean at least the Iraq, Gulf and Vietnam wars were fought for SOMETHING. Respectively, oil, oil and to prevent a country from going communist.

This war had no misguided goal. It had nothing...

[Republica Federal de Catalunya]

The war that was fought over the shooting of a pig (The Pig War)

That. Just that. And the Anglo-Zanzibar War.

Also there is a Salt war and a Bucket war.

[Aesthetica]

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.

Wrong answer, as the new regime also wants to be popular, and occupying the Falklands is still a mass idiot appeal policy. In addition, when the old regime was overthrown (if it had been after "liberating the Malvinas"), the new regime wouldn't want to lose popularity in it's unstable beginnings by losing the islands. Besides which theres the little problem of the islanders being under despotic foreign rule and oppression for a couple of years, during which time they would have been systematically driven from their homes and replaced with "patriotic Argentinian settlers".

So, no.

[Dragosovlkiav]

this is the stupidest war.

[Great Agram]

The Libyan civil war from 2011. It should never happened, there were some interest behind the war.

[New Sapienta]

The Libyan civil war from 2011. It should never happened, there were some interest behind the war.

A popular movement to oust a dictator?

Boy yeah, should never of happened.

[Zehr-Brunswick]

The Iraq War.

[K-714]

As mucht as I like WW1 as one of my favorite wars to read about, I must say WW1 was pretty pointless. Franz and wife get killed, Austria-Hungary blames Serbia, declares war, and the intricate alliance web took care of the rest.