FRIHOSTFORUMSSEARCHFAQTOSBLOGSCOMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


Stupidest Military Action





chasbeen
I cannot believe how some nations took actions far beyond their capabilities without consideration for the consequences. Why did Japan attack the Americans in Pearl harbour? What possessed them to do that or (similarly) Why did Iraq march into Kuwait. Of course we are always wiser with hindsight but even so?
My order (Stupidest first)

Iraq marching into Kuwait
Japan attacking America in Pearl Harbour.

What other ones can YOU think of and what order? Rolling Eyes
I am talking about the Start of a war and not either an "offensive" DURING a war. Also I'm talking about Individual small countries invoking the wrath of a group of powerful countries or country.
SORRY I WAS NOT CLEAR ENOUGH SO I APPENDED THIS Exclamation
jmwarshay
I would have to put the current US incursion into Iraq near the top. There are a few reasons:

1) It was done on the cheap. Secretary of Defense Rumsfield, VP Cheney and the rest of the administration tried to save as much money as possible. More troops and equipment were needed (and still are, given the "Surge").

2) Secondly, the invasion was done with little plans for what would happen after the inevitable victory.* However, in the aftermath, the oil ministry was looted, museums were looted, infrastructure was destroyed, no thought was given to the internal bureaucracy that would be needed, and the lack of police was devastating.

3) The looting of the US treasury by the contractors. Our government, in saving military personnel, overspent billions of dollars on contractors. Furthermore, much money that went to Iraq was not spent on people but lined pockets of the Iraqis in charge.

4) It was clear that we would need thousands of police (and Arabic speakers), but those ranks were not increased before the invasion. Our army was undersized for the task.

5) The war has cost billions of dollars, but just like President Johnson with Viet Nam, President Bush has not paid for it with taxes. Our federal debt was on the way down, and then went full steam in the opposite direction.

6) The goals may have been accomplished without such great loss of life and financial expense had the US worked with other nations rather than rushed to war.

7) The war in Afghanistan has been neglected. Terrorism has been given a shot in the arm. Iran has been made stronger by our invasion.

8) The US could have provided health coverage for all of the uninsured here with only some of the money spent on the war. We could have funded education and research better. We could have spent some more on securing our borders.

9) We did not find any weapons of mass destruction. Have you seen the t-shirt: "My friends went to Iraq to look for Weapons of Mass Destruction and all they found was this lousy t-shirt!"

* Victory over Saddam's army was inevitable given the vast differences in the quality of the troops and equipment. Here I am speaking only of the military victory over his army.
dray101
^^^ I agree

Why is it that US Citizens think they are a 'peaceful' nation?

They have caused the most wars and dictatorships in resent history. Do some reading and you'll find all the unrest and horrible atrocities they caused in the South America.

SOME THOSE COUNTRIES HAD STABLE DEMOCRACIES UNTIL THE CIA BACKED DICTATORS WHO TOOK OVER THE COUNTRY KILLING HUNDREDS AND REMOVING RIGHTS OF THOUSANDS LEAVING THEM IN FEAR; IN A STATE ALMOST AS BAD AS DEATH.
Don't believe me read (some unbiased, unblindly-patriotic sources)!

just thought I'd point that out Wink

www.thirdworldtraveler.com/South_America/Return_Repressed.html (first result I found on search for "US atrocities in South America")
Dark_Jedi06
Operation Barbarossa was, in my opinion, the greatest military blunder in modern history.

It opened up a massive Eastern front that made Germany extremely vulnerable. The Soviet Union had no intention to get involved with the Third Reich and Hitler could have easily waited until Western Europe and Great Britain was secure until invading Russia. Not only that, but the timing was terrible, placing the Wehrmacht in the heart of the severe Russian winter. The question is, why does no one learn from history? If Hitler had simply opened up a history book he would have understood the devastation the Russians wrought on Napoleon's army as he tried to take them on in the dead of winter. Just as ridiculous was Hitler's decision to declare war on the United States after the bombing of Pearl Harbor. It was evident by the American indirect support for the British that they were itching to get involved in the war militarily. Had Germany stayed focused on Great Britain and Russia and allowed the United States to combat Japan wholly they may have been successful in consolidating control over Europe. The isolationism of the American people would never have supported a war against Germany unless they were given a reason, which Hitler handed to them.
chasbeen
Dark_Jedi06&jmwarshay & dray101
I am talking about the Start of a war and not either an "offensive" DURING a war. Also I'm talking about Individual small countries invoking the wrath of a group of powerful countries or country.
Sorry I wanted the dialog within this context...
Moonspider
chasbeen wrote:
Dark_Jedi06&jmwarshay & dray101
I am talking about the Start of a war and not either an "offensive" DURING a war. Also I'm talking about Individual small countries invoking the wrath of a group of powerful countries or country.
Sorry I wanted the dialog within this context...


I think Dark-Jedi06's comment meets that criteria. Germany was not at war with the Soviet Union before Oepration Barbarossa. In fact, they had started World War II together. (Germany invaded Poland from the West while the USSR invaded from the East as part of an agreement between Hitler and Stalin.)

Thus, Hitler invoked the wrath of a very large country and added an ally to the nations at which Germany was already at war.

Respectfully,
M
Soltair
The Crusades weren't also that bright... If you think of it, they just dropped a few thousands of christians into a whole bunch of Arabic armies. In the long run, they had no chance of success (which history has proven).
{name here}
World War I has to be one of the greatest acts of military stupidity in history. Not only was it forseeable, and preventable, but people pointed fingers at the wrong people consistently until they just pinned all their military costs on Germany, even though they didn't start it.
dray101
'Stupidest Military Action' does that count the setting up of defenses before war?

Because after World War One (the 'great' war), France spent may millions and a lot of time setting up defense mainly consisting of underground tunnels along their border with food and sleeping areas inside (World War 1 was mainly forget in trenches). However, this was very, very stupid as tunnels and trenches were become obsolete. When the Germans finally did attack they just used tanks and planes flying over and driving over all of Frances defenses (France didn't have many others, most were invested in the border tunnels), taking over France in a matter of days.

Also, I here that the army was very disorganised, that the leader 'didn't like going out and seeing the troops'.

France falling in a couple of days! France! (France was a pretty great power in Europe) That is sadly stupid Crying or Very sad
Ennex
Anything the Americans have done (no offense)...but the administrations of America always tend to do something stupid...e.g. Iraq...but then again all nations make mistakes. Like Australia went into Vietnam which got us completely screwed over. Then there was as earlier mentioned before, the attack on Pearl Harbor.

I think the question should be...why is it we keep doing it? why do we all do something stupid.
dray101
^^^ You'd think after World War One or more likely World War 2 we would have learnt ah?
The unspeakable, and unbelievable atrocities that happened.

Guess not Mad
Moonspider
Ennex wrote:
Anything the Americans have done (no offense)...but the administrations of America always tend to do something stupid...e.g. Iraq...but then again all nations make mistakes. Like Australia went into Vietnam which got us completely screwed over. Then there was as earlier mentioned before, the attack on Pearl Harbor.

I think the question should be...why is it we keep doing it? why do we all do something stupid.


Okay, so the attack by the Japanese on Pearl Harbor was "stupid." But anything Americans have done is "stupid" as well. The stupid mistake of the Japanese was to bring the stupid Americans into the war. So, given that the United States won the war in the Pacific, I suppose you're simply saying that the Japanese are more stupid than the Americans since anything Americans have done militarily is stupid.

M
Ennex
oh god no, I'm not saying the Japanese are stupider (LOLZ even though stupider isnt even a word), I far believe that they're smarter, I'm just saying the attack was a bad tactic...but then again who hasn't made one, I believe the Americans have made far more larger...and i dare say FREQUENT mistakes...which they don't seem to learn from. I was just using Pearl Harbour as an example that the Americans aren't the only ones that have made a mistake.
Moonspider
Ennex wrote:
oh god no, I'm not saying the Japanese are stupider (LOLZ even though stupider isnt even a word), I far believe that they're smarter, I'm just saying the attack was a bad tactic...but then again who hasn't made one, I believe the Americans have made far more larger...and i dare say FREQUENT mistakes...which they don't seem to learn from. I was just using Pearl Harbour as an example that the Americans aren't the only ones that have made a mistake.


I must say that when it comes to fighting wars, Americans have one of the best track records in modern history.

I don't think Pearl Harbor was bad tactically, not in the slightest. The plan was brilliant and it was extremely well executed. Tactically it exceeded Japanese expectations. However, it proved a strategic blunder, just as Yamamoto feared.

Respectfully,
M
jharsika
Anyhoo....to bring this thread back on topic. I have one, didn't the armies used to stand in a line facing each other and just shoot?(I'm talking napolean or sometime around there) Where's the strategy in that? I've always that that dumb....
denestry
Japan attacked Pearl Harbor because the U.S. enacted an embargo on all oil supplies to Japan. The reason for the embargo is because Japan was invading China. The U.S. embargo cut-off 90% of Japans resources, which crippled their economy and most importantly military. They didn't specifically want to go to war, they just wanted to cripple the United States so they could bring them to the bargaining table to negotiate expansion into Asia. Unfortuantely, the Japanese didn't understand the United States way of thinking, which was "You bomb us, you declare war, and we pulverize you." On the Japanese side of the equation, it was simply a misunderstanding about how to negotiate terms with the Americans.

Japan attacked Pearl Harbor specifically for an important reason. Pearl Harbor was the home of the U.S. Pacific Fleet. Japan did not want the U.S. in the war because the U.S. at this time had the greatest Naval force. They concluded that if the Pacific Fleet was destroyed, Americans would feel de-moralized and not want to fight. Additionally, an attack on the Pacific Fleet would take the U.S. six months to recuperate and rebuild the Navy.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Why_did_the_Japanese_attack_Pearl_Harbor
{name here}
dray101 wrote:
^^^ You'd think after World War One or more likely World War 2 we would have learnt ah?
The unspeakable, and unbelievable atrocities that happened.

Guess not Mad

World War II happened as a direct consequence of the punishment inflicted to Germany from the Treaty of Versailles, which took their land, limited their army, and made them pay all the war costs of all the allies in World War I. This made Germany incredibly poor, and desperate to recover, making the Nazi Party have a very easy takeover. And for a while, they made Germany a decent country, sometimes by directly disobeying the Treaty. But then it all went to pot when Hitler and Himmler went on their whole conquest and genocide idea sparked by Nationalism (the very force that made them the winning party, but at the same time it is a force which is completely and utterly terrible).
virre
The crusade where Konstantinopel was taken is quite classic, oh "they are christians but not as us, oh they have load of gold. Lets get them"
Vladalf
dray101 wrote:
'Stupidest Military Action' does that count the setting up of defenses before war?

Because after World War One (the 'great' war), France spent may millions and a lot of time setting up defense mainly consisting of underground tunnels along their border with food and sleeping areas inside (World War 1 was mainly forget in trenches). However, this was very, very stupid as tunnels and trenches were become obsolete. When the Germans finally did attack they just used tanks and planes flying over and driving over all of Frances defenses (France didn't have many others, most were invested in the border tunnels), taking over France in a matter of days.

Also, I here that the army was very disorganised, that the leader 'didn't like going out and seeing the troops'.

France falling in a couple of days! France! (France was a pretty great power in Europe) That is sadly stupid Crying or Very sad


I didn't know this. Thanks for sharing this information.
breebree
Morally, i'd have to say Hiroshima. It entered the world into a new, frightening age of warfare. It showed complete disregard for human life and demonstrated just how brutal humans can be. What makes it worse is that at the time the US felt it was completly justified in dropping the bomb. I support the actions of the axis powers in no way however I will happily say that the Japanese were more ethical, and even more justified, in attacking pearl harbor than the US were in using the atom bomb on Hiroshima. I will probably be inundated with responsed citing Dresden, which I am also not in favour of, however firebombing the city of a nation who devestated the capital of your own country and dropping a nuclear bomb on a nation close to defeat, nevermind dropping two. My biggest grievance with the Hiroshima bombing is that it was dropped mainly for psychological effect, not to destroy troops, the comittee responsible for choosing the drop location said that the japanese "better able to appreciate the significance of the weapon.". Does America realy have the right to restrict Iraq, Iran, Korea or anyone's right to own nuclear weapons when they themselves are the only country to have used them, moreover used them in unnecessary circumstances? A lot of the people reading this will be American and I would'nt appreciate someone talking about my country in this way but i'm not attacking America itself, rather the decision made to drop the bomb.
Bru, stuffce
I'm one of those who thinks that the invasion of Iraq was one of the dumbest military decisions of recent times. Obviously George Bush is a moron, and this is a contributing factor, but the entire American government bears the responsibility for this ridiculously unsuccessful exercise.

The reason I see it as a massive screw-up is the enormous damage that this did to America financially and politically. America was always the number 1 country in the Middle East. People drove American cars (even though German cars are waaaay better), loved Coke and McDonalds, listened to American music and watched American TV. Arabs took most holidays in America.

Now America has shown itself to be ruled by murderous clowns with no concern for human life, happy to kill hundreds of thousands of civilians, but not to even count the dead. One more dead Arab; not even worth counting. Arabs have stopped loving America, and in some cases love has turned to hate.

News organisations don't like the way that the US has killed reporters for reporting the wrong truth, welfare organisations don't like the way that America ruined the infrastructure and decent people don't like mass-murder much.

Of the stated aims of the invasion (pre-invasion) none has been achieved apart from killing Saddam, but even that is a Pyhrric victory, as what leadership they now have is worse, though not as bad as America's.

Oil is now more expensive, al qaeda, after losing a lot of support following the WTC, is riding high again with new recruits flocking to join. America is more under threat than it ever was previously from terrorists, the US national debt will probably cripple their grandchildren and America no longer has any moral authority.

A nation we once all looked up to now has a reputation lower than that of a diseased crack-******, and all because an idiot wanted to be a "War President'.
Coclus
I really would say the Bay Of Pigs operation was one of the most brilliant operations ever to fail, initiated by the CIA. Another really cool thing was to give the Taliban Stinger Rocket Launcher so they can shoot down all the soviet helicopters, only to see these high tech weapons be used against US troops in 2002.
Or, now, to send Saudi Arabia military equipment, for free!! And did you know, 250,000 weapons sent to Iraq for the new built police/army simply disappeared!
I think this list could be endless,and it is sad that no one learns from its mistakes.
quex
I'm thinking the stupidest military action, if you'll allow that internal workings are action, has to be in the R&D departments. Like when the US proposed developing a gay bomb as a non-lethal alternative weapon. Better yet, some of the attempted technology from WW2 was downright hilarious. I'd strongly suggest this book to anyone who has an interest in obscure history, military tech, or comedy. Good read.
neroyert
I find it interesting that everyone who has posted has cited negatives mainly against America, no one mentioned the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan which was far worse for the Soviets than any war the United States has ever fought. And quex is right we are designing/ have designed some of the most strange, and sometimes useless, weapons ever. My Military blunder is going to be the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan it completely destroyed their army and set back their entire country decades, not that it was initiated against the some of the most ferocious fighters in the world.
medievalman26
I would have to say war in general would be the truly stupidest military action.
Moonspider
medievalman26 wrote:
I would have to say war in general would be the truly stupidest military action.


That is an oxymoron, is it not?

Respectfully,
M
quex
Moonspider wrote:
medievalman26 wrote:
I would have to say war in general would be the truly stupidest military action.


That is an oxymoron, is it not?

Respectfully,
M


Nope. An oxymoron is strictly inflected with intention, and most often appears as contradictio in terminis. Unintentional oxymora cannot properly be labeled as such. That is, "unintentional oxymora" is, in itself, a contradictio in terminis, and not an oxymoron.

I don't debate the invalidity of the sentence, mind you.

Reciprocated,
an English teacher
Moonspider
quex wrote:
Moonspider wrote:
medievalman26 wrote:
I would have to say war in general would be the truly stupidest military action.


That is an oxymoron, is it not?

Respectfully,
M


Nope. An oxymoron is strictly inflected with intention, and most often appears as contradictio in terminis. Unintentional oxymora cannot properly be labeled as such. That is, "unintentional oxymora" is, in itself, a contradictio in terminis, and not an oxymoron.

I don't debate the invalidity of the sentence, mind you.

Reciprocated,
an English teacher


I didn't know that! My sincere thanks for the lesson.

Respectfully,
M
quex
You're as welcome as can be. >w<
Bilkers
World War One. So many blunders and costly ones.
teknotom
The Battle of the Somme.

Haig just kept them going over.
ExplicitRyan
In WWI at Pachendaele was stupid, how the leaders would send their soldiers out to fight in sinking sand and let thousands get sucked in and died, they only gained 7 KM which was taken back and it was a complete waste of troops, supplies and time.
chasbeen
teknotom
Actually this is interesting and a variation on the theme "STUPIDEST MILITARY ACTION"

They are actually discussing taking haigs statue down in London.

Have a look after you post something at:


http://www.aftermathww1.com/statue.asp
304esque
chasbeen wrote:
Dark_Jedi06&jmwarshay & dray101
I am talking about the Start of a war and not either an "offensive" DURING a war. Also I'm talking about Individual small countries invoking the wrath of a group of powerful countries or country.
Sorry I wanted the dialog within this context...


so that means speculations of USA attacking anyone is safe from speculations, amirite?

"small nations invoking the wrath of a of a powerful country" is only funny when you are that big powerful country.

does the terrorist attack on america count? I can't remember if there were any other attacks on the actual american mainland really. America sends their army out against other countries, don''t they? not really the other way round, and I'm not talking about border war that might have occured between them and the canadians/mexicans.

America is always fighting away from their land. Does that say something? I think there's a funny in there somewhere

*harrumphs*
liljp617
dray101 wrote:
^^^ I agree

Why is it that US Citizens think they are a 'peaceful' nation?

They have caused the most wars and dictatorships in resent history. Do some reading and you'll find all the unrest and horrible atrocities they caused in the South America.

SOME THOSE COUNTRIES HAD STABLE DEMOCRACIES UNTIL THE CIA BACKED DICTATORS WHO TOOK OVER THE COUNTRY KILLING HUNDREDS AND REMOVING RIGHTS OF THOUSANDS LEAVING THEM IN FEAR; IN A STATE ALMOST AS BAD AS DEATH.
Don't believe me read (some unbiased, unblindly-patriotic sources)!

just thought I'd point that out Wink

www.thirdworldtraveler.com/South_America/Return_Repressed.html (first result I found on search for "US atrocities in South America")

lol...you act like every other major nation is innocent. You do realize that every superpower/empire that has existed in history did it on the basis of war and killing? And stop generalizing Americans please. Generalizations simply show a persons inability to form a coherent argument.
Moonspider
304esque wrote:
America is always fighting away from their land. Does that say something?


Yes, it says that the United States is geographically isolated from the rest of the world.

And other than the current Iraq War, I can think of no other conflict where the United States sent troops overseas without provocation.

Including the Iraq War (Gulf War II), the United States has started only one war to my knowledge. (And I am not sure the U.S. would have started that one without the history of GW I.) The Spanish-American War is arguable. The number would also arguably be larger if one includes the Indian Wars.

As to direct attacks on the American mainland, there have been plenty. (Revolutionary War, War of 1812, Mexican War, The War Between the States or American Civil War)

Respectfully,
M
gandalfthegrey
DUMBEST MILITARY BLUNDERS OF ALL TIME :

(1) Nazi Germany's invasion of the Soviet Union
(Bringing the Soviet Union into the war.)

(2) Japan's bombing of Pearl Harbour
(Bringing the United States into the war.)

(3) Germany's invasion of Belgium (during World War One)
(Thus bringing Great Britian, and later as such the United States into the war.)

(4) Napoleon's invasion of Russia
chasbeen
Invading Russia is REALLY stupid. It does not matter what century
jeremyp
Moonspider wrote:

I don't think Pearl Harbor was bad tactically, not in the slightest. The plan was brilliant and it was extremely well executed. Tactically it exceeded Japanese expectations. However, it proved a strategic blunder, just as Yamamoto feared.

No, it was a failure tactically. They hit Pearl Harbour on a day when the US carrier force was out on exercise and tus it escaped unscathed. They did serious damage to the battleships, but the battleships were already an irrelevance as far as Naval warfare was concerned.
jeremyp
chasbeen wrote:
Invading Russia is REALLY stupid. It does not matter what century

Quite. I think Hitler's invasion pips Napoleon's for monumental stupidity but only because Hitler had Napoleon's example to look back on.
ocalhoun
Japan attacking the US wasn't really that bad of an idea. If it weren't for 1) The USA's far greater industrial strength, which made replacing lost forces easier and 2) the battle of Midway, in which Japan lost 3/4 of it's vital carrier strength in one surprise attack (if I remember correctly) it would have worked out well. Especially considering that the Japanese at the time of Pearl Harbor had a far superior Pacific navy, better fighter planes, and the element of surprise, and that the US was already occupied with one huge war. What would have happened if the war in Europe was going badly, and Japan pressed the advantage early in the war?
Rattlebunny
jmwarshay wrote:
9) We did not find any weapons of mass destruction. Have you seen the t-shirt: "My friends went to Iraq to look for Weapons of Mass Destruction and all they found was this lousy t-shirt!


While we didn't find the stock piles of WMD that were reported to be there, it was reported that we did find evidence of their manufacture. Now, whether or not Saddam sold them to other countries, or moved them before the invasion we may never know. The fact is, as it was reported near the beginning of the war, there was evidence that at one time they were there.

Also, I believe that this war was going to happen no matter who was president at the time. Simple as that.
Dean_The_Great
Chamberlain giving away 1/3 of Czechoslovakia in an effort to "appease" the conquest-driven Hitler... yeah, that was a wise move...
ptfrances
I think the intervention in Somalia in 1993 was a quite stupid military action, bad prepared and without a unique good reason.
Wink
chasbeen
Yes there was a huge sculpture of a general on horse back in central London a few years ago and he was responsible for ordering many tens of thousands of men over the top to face a whole load of German bullets in WW1 France.
I think it has been taken down now and this action might not be entirely unconnected to the dispute as to whether the man was doing his duty or showing no regard for the soldiers he commanded.
gandalfthegrey
There is also the many examples of Western military arrogance...

The Battle of Isandlwana - where the British General thought that his 1,400 British soldiers could take on a force of over 25,000 zulus.

Battle of the Little Bighorn
nivinjoy
In my opinion military of a country is to protect the people and inturn to protect the world in whole...!!

In that sense and in my opinion all the wars that have ever happened in the history are really STUPIDEST and waste of money,time and lives...!!
Moonspider
jeremyp wrote:
Moonspider wrote:

I don't think Pearl Harbor was bad tactically, not in the slightest. The plan was brilliant and it was extremely well executed. Tactically it exceeded Japanese expectations. However, it proved a strategic blunder, just as Yamamoto feared.

No, it was a failure tactically. They hit Pearl Harbour on a day when the US carrier force was out on exercise and tus it escaped unscathed. They did serious damage to the battleships, but the battleships were already an irrelevance as far as Naval warfare was concerned.


I respectfully disagree. The Pearl Harbor attack was a major tactical victory, unless you believe the U.S. won that battle? Wink The kill to loss ratio was certainly in Japan's favor at the end of the day and I doubt you'll find any military scholar who’d argue against Japan’s tactical success there. I do fault Nagumo for not following through with further strikes against fuel storage, repair facilities, submarine facilities and other infrastructure, but I understand his caution since he was unaware of the Lexington’s and the Enterprise’s location. Personally, although I am handicapped by hindsight, I’d have continued attacking Pearl Harbor as long as possible given the superior numbers of the Japanese fleet, even if those two American carriers were nearby. (In fact, if I had been Nagumo I would have loved it if the carriers had revealed themselves and given battle, so confident I'd be in Japanese victory.) But a tactical victory it was nonetheless, very much so.

The absence of the carriers acerbated the strategic mistake. However, although I agree that battleships were already irrelevant as far as naval warfare was concerned, they were not yet quite irrelevant as far as naval doctrine was concerned. No naval expert (except maybe a few forward thinkers) in December of 1941 would have argued that battleships were irrelevant and that the Japanese attack at Pearl Harbor was a colossal failure because a couple of aircraft carriers weren’t there.

Respectfully,
M
Moonspider
gandalfthegrey wrote:
There is also the many examples of Western military arrogance...

The Battle of Isandlwana - where the British General thought that his 1,400 British soldiers could take on a force of over 25,000 zulus.

Battle of the Little Bighorn


I'm not familiar with the Battle of Isandlwana, but I'd argue that Little Bighorn is an example of individual arrogance (Custer) not "Western military" arrogance. And if giving battle at Isandlwana was the choice of the British general, not his superiors, I'd argue the same there as well.

Respectfully,
M
Klaw 2
dray101 wrote:
'Stupidest Military Action' does that count the setting up of defenses before war?

Because after World War One (the 'great' war), France spent may millions and a lot of time setting up defense mainly consisting of underground tunnels along their border with food and sleeping areas inside (World War 1 was mainly forget in trenches). However, this was very, very stupid as tunnels and trenches were become obsolete. When the Germans finally did attack they just used tanks and planes flying over and driving over all of Frances defenses (France didn't have many others, most were invested in the border tunnels), taking over France in a matter of days.

Also, I here that the army was very disorganised, that the leader 'didn't like going out and seeing the troops'.

France falling in a couple of days! France! (France was a pretty great power in Europe) That is sadly stupid Crying or Very sad


No it is slightly different, WOI there were whole defences through out the borders with france and germany but very little between france and belgium so what did the germans do? they drove around it through belgium.
After woI the france and the belgiums build defences along their borders with germany so what did the germans do? They drove around it through the Netherlands.

Other before the WO2 some french dude wrote a book about fast advances with motorized army's. He proposed it to the goverment and was denied so he published it. The germans read it and used it to defeat the french.
vontero
Going to war in Iraq was such an obviously bad choice I’m still amazed that some otherwise rational people supported it. The choice to go to war in Afghanistan was — to me, at least — more difficult & I initially supported it, with reservations. (Based mostly on my sense of the deep tarpit of evil at the heart of the Bush administration.) I am now convinced that the decision to go to war in Afghanistan was as bad as the decision to go to war in Iraq. (In retrospect, at least, I don’t agree with Quiggin that the Afghan war was inevitable & understandable because the US needed to “lash out.”)
Silk2008
How about the recent move by Georgia to instigate the Russions. Now I know most of you think that Russia started this but that is incorrect. Georgia attacked and killed civilians in South Ossetia first forcing Russia to protect it's people. Think about it people, if Cuba attacked Puerto Rico and killed alot of American citizens what do you think we'd do? Push them back that's what. Fools! Did they really think that Russia was really going to just sit there while we train and equip their army, move missle batteries into their back yard and attack Russian civilians. Wake up people!!! This is a very grave mistake on our and Georgia's part. Russia is no joke. They don't F***k around, and they are no longer the broken Russia of the late 80's and early 90's. If you encircle a wild bear it will attack you.
Moonspider
Silk2008 wrote:
How about the recent move by Georgia to instigate the Russions. Now I know most of you think that Russia started this but that is incorrect. Georgia attacked and killed civilians in South Ossetia first forcing Russia to protect it's people. Think about it people, if Cuba attacked Puerto Rico and killed alot of American citizens what do you think we'd do?


Actually I think that a poor analogy. There's no doubt that Georgia initiated the conflict. (However I do believe the Russians were already more or less in position to counterattack, not surprised as they would have us believe.) However, South Ossetia is not part of Russia. It is part of Georgia.

Silk2008 wrote:
This is a very grave mistake on our and Georgia's part.


I don't see how it is a grave mistake on our part. The U.S. did nothing to engourage the Georgian military attempt to bring its break away state back into the fold. In fact, from what I recall, the U.S. advised them not to use military force against South Ossetia or Abkhazia.

A tactical error, to be sure, on Georgia's part. But time will tell if Russia made a stragegic error in pushing too far. If so, Ukraine at least, and possibly Georgia will enter NATO before they would have otherwise. In any case it has further entrenched the former Warsaw Pact nations and former Soviet Republics against Russia.

But in the bigger picture, Russia's involvement here has nothing to do with the people of South Ossetia or Abkhazia. President Saakashvili did foolishly play into the Russians' hand, though.

Respectfully,
M
gcaughill
I assume any land war in Asia is dumb Razz
LordScorch
Well, I personally think the worst military move was when Napoleon invaded Russia. He became a bit too crazy in occupying land, and spreading his beliefs. And the Russian winter came, which really screwed him over.

He really had nothing to take over after Russia burned its cities..
LGCanada
War in Croatia: Croatia today has the highest debt in all of Europe. The debt comes from the war. The results of the war were also catastrophic. Over 500,000 Serbs displaced from a region that theylived on for over 500 years. And from economic perspective it was also a mistake since Croatia has gained a territory that lacks any economic value.
Glenn08
the stupidiest war: the war in Irak :the winner become the looser and it was easy to know at the beginnning. Because the USA had declare this war without the agreement of United Nation Organisation. And now, their image is negative.
OpposableThumbs
The most famous European blunder memorialized in poetry is "The Charge of the Light Brigade" at Balaclava during the Crimean War. Here is some info:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charge_of_the_Light_Brigade
me410
What about the Carbonera battle?, was in the Mexican american War, the mexican troops was under the command of a corrupt general, who was payed by the americans to be defeated, in the interim, 75% of the mexican troops was KIA.
muffinman187
with japan attacking pearl harbor. if japan had attacked that military base a second round, Hawaii would fall into the hand of japan. Pearl harbor was the biggest navy base in Hawaii. The first round of attack, Japan did heavy damage but they left allowing the US to rebuild it's military in the pacific afterward; end of story for Japan.

I believe from Japan stand point taking over Hawaii is a big advantages because Hawaii is one major key point in the pacific theater but overall attacking the US was a big mistakes. The US is a HUGE country compare to Japan and the US has plenty of advance weaponry.


Also someone mention of Nazi Germany attacking Russia, that was a huge mistake too.
j14fusion14
When the Roman solders that were guarding the pope left, the Italian army took over.
macacoescalada
One of the worst military actions ever performed was the dictatorship in Chile between the years 1973-1990. It was terrible, many people died, tortured, and my country still can´t overcome of this situation.
jeremyrice
dude this is so true i was reading it the other day
roninmedia
I would have to say the invasion of Russia. The nation is too vast to be captured to the point where it would surrender. They would just gladly give up the capital, bide time, and crush you when winter comes. Hitler had Napoleon's example to look back on and he essentially made the same logistical conclusions which we know didn't work in 1812, i.e. invade in June, underestimate Russian capitulation, undersupplied.

I think Hitler had hopes the Japanese would help out on a Eastern attack on Russia from their successes in the Jap-Russo War of 1905. But Japan did make earlier attempts to attack Russia in the 1930's, but Stalin's forces rebuffed them back to Manchuria.

Opening a second front was a terrible idea. Hitler should have completely destroyed the British Expeditionary Force on the shores on Dunkirk and launch a large scale maritime invasion of Britain, much like he did on Norway, except to a greater scale.
edwinl
For me USA invasion to Irak the worst war, too many deads, too many costs and things are worst that until it begans
HotspurOT
jharsika wrote:
Anyhoo....to bring this thread back on topic. I have one, didn't the armies used to stand in a line facing each other and just shoot?(I'm talking napolean or sometime around there) Where's the strategy in that? I've always that that dumb....


It seems like it, yes. However, if you look at the technology OF THE TIME, it was about as effective of an infantry tactic as could be devised, given the limitations. Smoothbore muskets were around for at least a century, almost two centuries. The accuracy of a SINGLE musket was pretty abysmmal. After 100 yards or so, a single bullet from a single musket couldn't hit the broad side of a barn.

Now, let's look at that line of muskets again. IF you can drill your soldiers to go through the many steps it took to fire a musket in an organized, cohesive and memorized manner, suddenly you don't have one musket ball that can't hit the broad side of a barn any more, but a GIANT WALL OF HOT LEAD moving down field to the target-- and it's yours to control. The problem of course is moving that line of muskets close to the people they need to shoot at, and having as many of YOUR guns pointing at the "bad guys" as possible when the order to fire is given. The answer to that is those classical lines of muskets that look so stupid on the face of it. Remember, it takes MANY steps to load and fire one of these things, so if you survived the initial exchange of fire, you reach for your bayonet, attach it to the musket and charge the other side whooping like an Injun. A very effective tactic, for that time and place.

By the 19th century, linear maneuvers with smoothbore muskets where as effective as they always had been.. say, in the Napoleonic Wars.. but by the American Civil War, those smoothbore muskets were being converted to rifled muskets, and that is a very different situation, more akin to your initial comment-- RIFLED muskets could hit at ONE THOUSAND yards out.. so yes, it was pretty stupid to march out in a line facing them, when the enemy could get off 2, maybe 3 volleys of fire at you before you get to the bayonet part.

In summary, it's all relative.. what worked in the 18th century was starting to malfunction by the mid-19th century.

H.
HotspurOT
edwinl wrote:
For me USA invasion to Irak the worst war, too many deads, too many costs and things are worst that until it begans


Where is Irak? I'm not familiar with the country.
HotspurOT
[quote="304esqueAmerica is always fighting away from their land. Does that say something? I think there's a funny in there somewhere

*harrumphs*[/quote]

Strategically, it's smart enough. I'd rather fight an enemy in THEIR territory than in MINE.
HotspurOT
Ennex wrote:
oh god no, I'm not saying the Japanese are stupider (LOLZ even though stupider isnt even a word), I far believe that they're smarter, I'm just saying the attack was a bad tactic...but then again who hasn't made one, I believe the Americans have made far more larger...and i dare say FREQUENT mistakes...which they don't seem to learn from. I was just using Pearl Harbour as an example that the Americans aren't the only ones that have made a mistake.


To attribute "stupid" to a populace, or event to attach the term to an entire nation as being symptotic of the national will and aspirations of that nation, shows a paucity of analysis. It's quite true that nations may have poor leaders from time to time (you will not see me cheering the current administration of my country, not by a long shot). It's quite true that any country is capable of making blunders in pursuit of their own interests. That does not make the entire nation "stupid", nor even their elected leaders "stupid". If you peel the layers back you can see what seems like a blunder in hindsight must have been compelling at the time. Often bad mistakes are brought about by a failure in analysis, or some misperception of the other nation's will. The example you cite, Pearl Harbor, certainly appeared logical to the Japanese leadership in 1941. Why? Because they felt that the United States would not have the industrial capacity, political or moral will, and ability to mobilize for at least a year. Yamamoto's own papers indicate this, they are published by Da Capo press, btw, and are a great read. Results were not as they expected.. but once committed, they weren't going to back down from what they had started.

H.
gaxtest
The American soldiers staying back at Iraq after winning the war and capturing Saddam Hussein Wink
Johnsenesque
HotspurOT wrote:
Ennex wrote:
oh god no, I'm not saying the Japanese are stupider (LOLZ even though stupider isnt even a word), I far believe that they're smarter, I'm just saying the attack was a bad tactic...but then again who hasn't made one, I believe the Americans have made far more larger...and i dare say FREQUENT mistakes...which they don't seem to learn from. I was just using Pearl Harbour as an example that the Americans aren't the only ones that have made a mistake.


To attribute "stupid" to a populace, or event to attach the term to an entire nation as being symptotic of the national will and aspirations of that nation, shows a paucity of analysis. It's quite true that nations may have poor leaders from time to time (you will not see me cheering the current administration of my country, not by a long shot). It's quite true that any country is capable of making blunders in pursuit of their own interests. That does not make the entire nation "stupid", nor even their elected leaders "stupid". If you peel the layers back you can see what seems like a blunder in hindsight must have been compelling at the time. Often bad mistakes are brought about by a failure in analysis, or some misperception of the other nation's will. The example you cite, Pearl Harbor, certainly appeared logical to the Japanese leadership in 1941. Why? Because they felt that the United States would not have the industrial capacity, political or moral will, and ability to mobilize for at least a year. Yamamoto's own papers indicate this, they are published by Da Capo press, btw, and are a great read. Results were not as they expected.. but once committed, they weren't going to back down from what they had started.

H.



Exactly. We have the incredible power of hindsight, the ability to sit in a comfy chair outside of the situation, with much more knowledge than they would have had at the time. Calling a military tactic "stupid" is like saying that a tennis player is stupid for not hitting every single one of his balls into the right position.
poppat
Hi

All military action is stupid. It is for the less intelligent who cannot fight their battles in more peaceful ways. You usually find that ego overtakes reason and us normal everyday people end up paying for it with our lives.

poppat
deanhills
poppat wrote:
Hi

All military action is stupid. It is for the less intelligent who cannot fight their battles in more peaceful ways. You usually find that ego overtakes reason and us normal everyday people end up paying for it with our lives.

poppat


Now this is a really dumb statement to make! Would have been wonderful if life could be so uncomplicated and simple that military action could be stupid, as then military action would not be necessary anymore.
Crinoid
Stupidest military action? I'll second the military action (war), when somebody in power sends others to die at whim. Wars and conflicts are not started by nations, but by leaders Sad
manlear
dray101 wrote:
^^^ I agree

Why is it that US Citizens think they are a 'peaceful' nation?

They have caused the most wars and dictatorships in resent history. Do some reading and you'll find all the unrest and horrible atrocities they caused in the South America.

SOME THOSE COUNTRIES HAD STABLE DEMOCRACIES UNTIL THE CIA BACKED DICTATORS WHO TOOK OVER THE COUNTRY KILLING HUNDREDS AND REMOVING RIGHTS OF THOUSANDS LEAVING THEM IN FEAR; IN A STATE ALMOST AS BAD AS DEATH.
Don't believe me read (some unbiased, unblindly-patriotic sources)!

just thought I'd point that out Wink

www.thirdworldtraveler.com/South_America/Return_Repressed.html (first result I found on search for "US atrocities in South America")


I think people like you is what causes the U.S to go to war Very Happy
And don't say US Citizens because not all of us "think" the same.
Just in your next post do me a favor and don't insult the American Populous and just insult the people that think like that.
Sincerely,
~Manlear~
manlear
Johnsenesque wrote:
HotspurOT wrote:
Ennex wrote:
oh god no, I'm not saying the Japanese are stupider (LOLZ even though stupider isnt even a word), I far believe that they're smarter, I'm just saying the attack was a bad tactic...but then again who hasn't made one, I believe the Americans have made far more larger...and i dare say FREQUENT mistakes...which they don't seem to learn from. I was just using Pearl Harbour as an example that the Americans aren't the only ones that have made a mistake.


To attribute "stupid" to a populace, or event to attach the term to an entire nation as being symptotic of the national will and aspirations of that nation, shows a paucity of analysis. It's quite true that nations may have poor leaders from time to time (you will not see me cheering the current administration of my country, not by a long shot). It's quite true that any country is capable of making blunders in pursuit of their own interests. That does not make the entire nation "stupid", nor even their elected leaders "stupid". If you peel the layers back you can see what seems like a blunder in hindsight must have been compelling at the time. Often bad mistakes are brought about by a failure in analysis, or some misperception of the other nation's will. The example you cite, Pearl Harbor, certainly appeared logical to the Japanese leadership in 1941. Why? Because they felt that the United States would not have the industrial capacity, political or moral will, and ability to mobilize for at least a year. Yamamoto's own papers indicate this, they are published by Da Capo press, btw, and are a great read. Results were not as they expected.. but once committed, they weren't going to back down from what they had started.

H.



Exactly. We have the incredible power of hindsight, the ability to sit in a comfy chair outside of the situation, with much more knowledge than they would have had at the time. Calling a military tactic "stupid" is like saying that a tennis player is stupid for not hitting every single one of his balls into the right position.


Good Analogy Very Happy
Kopernikus
gandalfthegrey wrote:
DUMBEST MILITARY BLUNDERS OF ALL TIME :

(1) Nazi Germany's invasion of the Soviet Union
(Bringing the Soviet Union into the war.)

(2) Japan's bombing of Pearl Harbour
(Bringing the United States into the war.)

(3) Germany's invasion of Belgium (during World War One)
(Thus bringing Great Britian, and later as such the United States into the war.)

(4) Napoleon's invasion of Russia


ad 1) Stalin was already planning on attacking Hitler. He only thought he had much more time. Exclamation
ad 2) The could have pulled it off. If they had nailed the carriers! Exclamation
ad 3) maybe a blunder. but they thought the war would be over before the reaction set in. which it very nearly was...
ad 4) partly, it was that they weren´t prepared for the russian winter, that they went too far, because of the correct strategy of the russians. which definitely wasn´t a given Wink
deanhills
1. Invasion of Russia by both Napoleon and Hitler. Hitler's was even more dumb as he had Napoleon's example to learn from.
2. The British military action against the Boers during the first Boer war around the turn of the nineteenth century when they were making conventional war with red coats, drums etc presenting themselves as shooting targets for the Boers and stabbing targets for the black tribes, the Zulus and Matabeles. During the Second Boer War the British finally caught on a little and changed to Khahki, but still made many mistakes, the worst one being underestimating their enemy, the Boers.
thveninnn
World War One. So many blunders and costly ones.
Chinmoy
any infantry attack on russia...it incurred such high costs and casualities...why couldnt they learn from history? Russia is not an infantry attack ground, neither is afghanistan..The US should really have taken things more seriously in afghanistan..
guggs
The most stupid thing about Japan's attack at Pearl Harbor was that the Japanese military KNEW that it was a stupid idea in the long term, as it would start a war they couldn't win. They were fully aware that no matter how much damage they did to the US Navy in that one hit then the industrial power of the USA would repair / replace the ships reasonably quickly. Can't remember his name (Yamamoto ?) but the top Japanese general predicted 18 months of victories after the start of a war before the Americans became too strong, and that prediction proved to be pretty damned accurate.
Jamestf347
Personally I believe that the Japanese attacking America was stupidest. General Isoroku Yamamoto did know America wasn't just going to let Japan attack them, because he did go to college in the US. and if you didn't know he was the one who planned the Pearl Harbor Bombing. If you think about it they attacked the USA at Pearl Harbor is because they were influenced by Hitler, another reason they did is, what happened in World War One? They were basically blundered, and they were pour. They did need money. So they had a couple reasons to attack the USA. Although it was honestly stupid. They lost many men in the war and about 110,000 in the two nukes (even though they should have given up after the first one).

Iraq walking into to Kuwait was also pretty stupid, and it was all about money. Sadam wanted to capitalize on the money in oil. He thought it was going to be easy to attack the richest nation in the World. But he under estimated everything, expecting no one would help them. So although it was stupid, It was all about money.
pscompanies
World War I is one of the greatest acts of military stupidity in history. It was preventable. And ended up as a big waste of resources..
Jamestf347
Most wars are like this... they don't get anywhere really. Look back at vietnam. Even look right now, in the middle east, It's a huge money guzzler there's some point in being there, but it could have been prevented.
JessieF
breebree wrote:
Morally, i'd have to say Hiroshima. It entered the world into a new, frightening age of warfare. It showed complete disregard for human life and demonstrated just how brutal humans can be. What makes it worse is that at the time the US felt it was completly justified in dropping the bomb. I support the actions of the axis powers in no way however I will happily say that the Japanese were more ethical, and even more justified, in attacking pearl harbor than the US were in using the atom bomb on Hiroshima. I will probably be inundated with responsed citing Dresden, which I am also not in favour of, however firebombing the city of a nation who devestated the capital of your own country and dropping a nuclear bomb on a nation close to defeat, nevermind dropping two. My biggest grievance with the Hiroshima bombing is that it was dropped mainly for psychological effect, not to destroy troops, the comittee responsible for choosing the drop location said that the japanese "better able to appreciate the significance of the weapon.". Does America realy have the right to restrict Iraq, Iran, Korea or anyone's right to own nuclear weapons when they themselves are the only country to have used them, moreover used them in unnecessary circumstances? A lot of the people reading this will be American and I would'nt appreciate someone talking about my country in this way but i'm not attacking America itself, rather the decision made to drop the bomb.


I am American and I agree. However, Hiroshima wasn't bombed only for a psychological effect, and it was (partially) aimed at the Japanese Military. "Hiroshima was a city of considerable military importance, containing Japan's Second Army Headquarters, as well as being a communications center and storage depot." Harriet Truman promised to only use it as a "purely military target", which wasn't kept, of course. http://www.world-war-2.info/atomic-bomb/

The sad thing is, is that you don't win a war with morals. Sad

Tibet is trying to win their freedom from China through peace. I often wonder what Tibet would be like today if Japan had been left to their devices in China. However, we can't know how the Japanese military would have handled the peoples of Tibet 50-70 years ago.
jilbs
Jamestf347 wrote:
Most wars are like this... they don't get anywhere really. Look back at vietnam. Even look right now, in the middle east, It's a huge money guzzler there's some point in being there, but it could have been prevented.


i agree, all money to the groups who provides the weapon. Sad
ronbarak
Dark_Jedi06 wrote:
Operation Barbarossa was, in my opinion, the greatest military blunder in modern history.

It opened up a massive Eastern front that made Germany extremely vulnerable. The Soviet Union had no intention to get involved with the Third Reich and Hitler could have easily waited until Western Europe and Great Britain was secure until invading Russia. Not only that, but the timing was terrible, placing the Wehrmacht in the heart of the severe Russian winter. The question is, why does no one learn from history? If Hitler had simply opened up a history book he would have understood the devastation the Russians wrought on Napoleon's army as he tried to take them on in the dead of winter. Just as ridiculous was Hitler's decision to declare war on the United States after the bombing of Pearl Harbor. It was evident by the American indirect support for the British that they were itching to get involved in the war militarily. Had Germany stayed focused on Great Britain and Russia and allowed the United States to combat Japan wholly they may have been successful in consolidating control over Europe. The isolationism of the American people would never have supported a war against Germany unless they were given a reason, which Hitler handed to them.


Well, if operation Barbarossa was carried out according to its original time-table, without wasting precious Spring/Summer time in Yugoslavia, and thus delaying the beginning of it to 22 June, it may well have succeeded in overwhelming the Russians completely (as it actually did before Winter set on). Also, the decision not to press on Moscow and instead to turn and capture the Caucasus Oil (and then being caught in Stalingrad) was a major mistake. And the hubris of not supplying the soldiers with Winter gear...

I'm not saying that it's definite that if the Wehrmacht had carried it's original plans without Hitler's interventions and changes would have guarantied the Germans triumph over the USSR, I'm just saying there's a strong possibility that they might, and then go all the way and join with their Japanese allies somewhere in Manchuria.
ronbarak
chasbeen wrote:
I cannot believe how some nations took actions far beyond their capabilities without consideration for the consequences. Why did Japan attack the Americans in Pearl harbour? What possessed them to do that or (similarly) Why did Iraq march into Kuwait. Of course we are always wiser with hindsight but even so?
My order (Stupidest first)

Iraq marching into Kuwait
Japan attacking America in Pearl Harbour.

What other ones can YOU think of and what order? Rolling Eyes
I am talking about the Start of a war and not either an "offensive" DURING a war. Also I'm talking about Individual small countries invoking the wrath of a group of powerful countries or country.
SORRY I WAS NOT CLEAR ENOUGH SO I APPENDED THIS Exclamation


I'd vote for Gamal Abdel Nasser blockading the Straits of Tiran and expelling the United Nations Emergency Force (UNEF) from the Sinai, thus supplying Israel with a Casus belli, BUT - leaving Egypt's air-force's planes in neat rows on the runways and consequently allowing the Israeli air-force to annihilate it on the ground (i.e., for all intents and purposes winning the Six-days war within it's first three hours).
ronbarak
dray101 wrote:
'Stupidest Military Action' does that count the setting up of defenses before war?

Because after World War One (the 'great' war), France spent may millions and a lot of time setting up defense mainly consisting of underground tunnels along their border with food and sleeping areas inside (World War 1 was mainly forget in trenches). However, this was very, very stupid as tunnels and trenches were become obsolete. When the Germans finally did attack they just used tanks and planes flying over and driving over all of Frances defenses (France didn't have many others, most were invested in the border tunnels), taking over France in a matter of days.

Also, I here that the army was very disorganised, that the leader 'didn't like going out and seeing the troops'.

France falling in a couple of days! France! (France was a pretty great power in Europe) That is sadly stupid Crying or Very sad


Actually, your analysis is a bit wrong.
What the Germans did was avoid confronting the Maginot line (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maginot_Line) heads on along it's full length, with their Panzer (tank) divisions (and thus there was no
Quote:
When the Germans finally did attack they just used tanks and planes flying over and driving over all of Frances defenses
).
Instead, the German concentrated their attack at the place the Maginot line connected with the Belgium fortifications, and thus went around it by being able to break through this weak point. The Maginot line may have been quite a good defensive line - even against 1939's tanks and artillery, it was just never put to use as the French intended.
ronbarak
gcaughill wrote:
I assume any land war in Asia is dumb Razz


I think Genghis Khan and his generals would disagree Smile
misterXY
Well.. Everyone keeps dumbing it up..
Shut up about Iraq and Germany vs Russia, also Japan vs United States

Let's look at military actions (battles that we're decided by generals who probably never seen a battle)

Here's one.
The Dieppe Raid... that was an HUGE blunder......

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dieppe_Raid
They freaking used brochures of the beach as a guide.. Rolling Eyes
Related topics
Chavez: U.S. will 'bite the dust' if it invades
"Chris" Ryan
A soldier's rant
Civilian Casualties in Iraq...
What did Bush lie about?
'serious pressure' must be placed on Syria
Is the US an International Bully or the "free world sav
Justification for War in Iraq
Talking about China
Urban Legends About the Iraq War
Farkash sets deadline for strike on Iran
Israel readies forces for strike on nuclear Iran
Why is the USA in Iraq?
What have learnt?
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> History

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.