Is there a bigger military catastrophe in history than the most recent Iraq war?
537800
Yes, I would say for the US Vietnam was. For the world I would say Japan had it pretty rough when we droped two nukes on two huge citys.
657748
Most Americans dont have common sense when it comes to comparing death.  There are many instances like that.  For Example, statistically Marine Corps BootCamp is the absolute safest place for a person to be, yet the media and the people BLOW UP when someone dies there.  STOP COMPARING IRAQ TO NAM! They are nothing alike. Vietnam involved real fighting! Iraq war deaths are mostly IEDs and cowardly tactics like that!
256162
Very interesting question indeed!  I believe that the knee-jerk reaction to this question would be "no", however, when thinking about it more broadly--I guess ultimately the answer is "yes".  Perhaps this is the basis of "justified war" that religious organizations speak about.  A good example from recent history would be the horrific events of Nazi Germany, Rwanda & currently in Darfur & Congo.  Since  genocide was (is) happening, violence may be necessary--and then acceptable to put an end to the problem.
7183
The most scientifically accurate study of civilian deaths since the war started was done by the Lancet, a British medical journal in 2004.\n\nBased on the number of Iraqi fatalities recorded by the survey teams, the researchers calculated that the death rate since the invasion had increased from 5 percent annually to 7.9 percent. That works out to an excess of about 100,000 deaths since the war, the researchers reported in a paper released early by the Lancet.\n\nAt times it may have been worse under Saddam, but that was long before the invasion.  Saddam's worst killings were committed in the 1980s, including his gassing of Kurds at Halabja in 1988.  In Halabja 5,000 innocent civilians, 75% women and children were killed by Saddam's forces using chemical weapons.
934619
Kerry Has certainly made his mistakes. But Bush and Cheney are in way over their heads. They blundered into Iraq not because of terrorism but because of Hussein. (They had to cover up for bin laden some how.) The military is not prepared to fight guerrillas. We have the most powerful military in the world, but as it was proved in Vietnam, if we're not fighting another army, we cannot win. We didn't have the organization to take Iraq when we started, and now we don't have the will. The Bush administration is trying desperately to cover up for what will be 8 bungled years. They achieved nothing except to destroy the United State's reputation in the eyes of the world.
933520
The insertion of troops was a major mistake. The entire region under Islamic influence from Morocco to Indonesia is far less stable as a result. The U.S. is increasingly seen as dictatorial by increasing numbers of people around the world. Our economy has been vastly weakened. We do not have enough troops available should other emergencies develop. The Civil War, denied by the Bush administration but acknowledged as being fully underway by the rest of the world, deepens daily and leaves American troops there as sitting ducks. There can be no victory in Iraq. Just as the British learned after World War I, the Iraqis will not be conquered. There is too much value underground (oil) and too much division above-ground. The only result of continued occupation will be increasing governmental debt for the U.S. and more dead and injured American soldiers. Military contractors such as Halliburton are being enriched. The Bush administration has no idea of what they mean by "victory", nor does Tony Blair in England.
835300
Yes. Octobers U.S. death toll was the highest yet. Our troops continue to die in a battle that can't be won. When all the Iraq people are dead, maybe then our troops can come home.
907938
Not as usual .....We lost the Iraq war thats clear......we didn't have stomache for it from the start.  The US is not what she was during WW2......
391169
Already happened.  We took Baghdad, and quickly.  Didn't you pay attention?  Didn't you see the tanks roll in to Baghdad?  The cruise missiles light up the night sky?  The iraqi armies surrendering by the legion-full?\n\nWatch carefully next time.  "Shock & Awe" is not a long-lasting process.  It is a stun and go.
467979
1.  9/11 obviously is top of the list.\n2.  Wars in Afgan. and Iraq\n3.  Natural disasters - Hurricanes and Tsunami\n4.  Passing of Pope John Paul\n5.  Y2K.....haha.  Remember that non-event?
415489
Yes, but we hope and pray this may not happen.\nWorld wars or even major wars started with some of the ff. sequences: prejudice, bigotry, greed, social divisiveness, an upsurge of national or patriotic fervor, then internal political upheavals, war pacts and peace agreements, military buildup/escalation, interior cultural or ethnic clashes, economic blockade, consular debacles, political/electoral intervention, military intervention (training, advisers, military hardware, support), an open war, multi-theater wars, one, two thermal bombs...
393027
I do think that Iraq was to take the attention away from Afghanistan, seems both have taken some hits. the most important thing is not the wars per say but to support our sailors, and ground troops who do the mucking.\nonly time will tell, as even the civil war was to last for 100 years. Take care and bless a troop.
29940
I'd estimate somewhere in the 40,000-50,000 range of Iraqi casualties. Of course, it could be much more, no one knows.
703916
The Iraqis didn't destroy the American military; there have only been just 2837 US military killed since 9-11.  Compare that with 400,000 US dead in WW II and you can see that Iraq is basically nothing more than a 'training exercise' to keep military tactics, strategies and reflexes honed.\n\nAnd yes....duh...America is still the one and only superpower.
1094414
Probably the war in Iraq.  It's destine to be his legacy - and it will not be a good one.  History will not be kind to W when it comes to reviewing the steps, missteps, and miscalculations of that quagmire.  But hey, maybe we as a country can learn from this mistake.  The last time we had a president of this level it was followed by Lincoln.  So here's hoping...
1006095
You know, 500 years ago there were wars going on in the Middle East...not about oil.\n300 years prior to that there were wars in the Middle East... not about oil.\n700 years prior to that there were wars in the Middle East... not about oil.\n900 years prior to that there were wars in the Middle East... not about oil.\n400 years prior to that there were wars in the Middle East... not about oil.\nAnd on and on and on...\n\nThis war is not about oil.  This war is about getting a foothold in the most strategic location on the planet.
972933
I have always felt that the recent “Iraq War” should not have started at all. America did not have the international backing to do so and did not have a proper post-invasion plan that could have prevented the sectarian violence going on. Sun Tzu, one of the greatest military thinkers in history, always stressed the importance of alliances. A country must have alliances to be strong (even if it’s the sole superpower in the world, but even a superpower can be trumped by non-conventional enemies ie Soviet-Afghan War) and it must deny the enemy alliances. Instead, by attacking Iraq, we actually strengthened the enemy by letting chaos occur (fall of the Baa’th government, riots, looting, etc afterwards). States are hard to build, as we can see from Germany and Japan, and to take one down is easier to do. Terrorists thrive in chaos, and Al Qaeda flocked to Iraq to take advantage of it. Along with the overly military answer, the US aided the growth of the insurgency by using the conventional heavy firepower causing discontent in the population. Combined with the fire fanning of Al Qaeda and the already existing differences between the Kurds, Shiites, and Sunnis, this made for a lethal stew that led to the mess we are facing today. America never had the proper strategy to fight a non-conventional enemy such as Al-Qaeda because it had been born and raised in an era where non-conventional enemies (non-state entities) did not hold a monopoly over war. But this century signals the change where the battlefield will be shared between state armed forces and non-state entities (ie, Private Military Companies, Al Qaeda, etc.)\n\nAmerica had the support of the international community after 9/11 to attack those who openly supported Al Qaeda, which was Afghanistan. Hence, Afghanistan was an acceptable war and we had a good thing going. However, shifting forces to Iraq and thinking that the fall of the Taliban would simply lead to total defeat of the Taliban was a big mistake. Basically, America did not finish the job in Afghanistan before moving on to another country. Full stability and legitimacy of the Afghan government should have been achieved. And now some will say that after WWII, the US helped both Japan and Germany to their feet and look how it turned out. To that, I would have to answer that the dynamics were different. Both countries were thoroughly exhausted and devastated by years of warfare and looked to the support of the West for help. The atmosphere in Iraq and Afghanistan are different; they did not for the most part want the West to come rushing in and staying due to their well-placed suspicions about colonialism which was a big part of their history. Bringing Western ideas and values into traditional societies also offer social and political troubles as well. To illustrate farther: can you imagine not having a distinction between religion and the state in the US? What if someone came along and imposed a theocracy in the US? How would you feel?