I'm sure the thousands of civilians in North Vietnam loved being bombed as well. Also they probably loved being without 80% of their electricity.

No, Has to be Operation Barabrossa

Operation El Dorado Canyon

Never heard of it Frito- pls explain?

D-Day

I'm sure those 15 Libyan civilians loved it.

But, in the spirit of the thread, Operation Uranus was carried out beautifully.

only 15? big deal, ha ha ha... hardly a Military operation.

Is that a real operation, or simply a joke?

Operation Iraqi Freedom

It was, google it.
Really taylornottyler?

taylornottyler? how arrogant! That was a disaster, and now you all run from the damage you have caused. And Iraq is no safer than it was 6 yrs ago, let alone 9 when saddam was in power. Get a brain

I'd feel pretty uncomfortable describing a military operation as my "favorite." I mean, my "favorite" one would be one which is over quickly, cost very little money, had no casualties, and rid the world of an unambiguous evil. I don't think such an operation exists.

"Interesting" would be a better word, in which case I'd say Barbarossa. I mean, the largest land battle in world history fought between two equally unsavory countries is pretty fascinating.

Certainly much more so than the Christmas Bombings which only achieved a graceful exit for US forces from South Vietnam before the North invaded. If you really understood Vietnam War you'd see that that operation exposes how wrong-headed the whole conflict was. If anything, this operation is a glaring example of American impotence in the war since the full might of the US military bombings only got an agreement which doomed South Vietnam to communist rule. As is the case throughout the entire history of our misguided adventure there, we won the battle but lost the war. Hardly something sincere patriot (that's not sarcastic) like the Professor should call his favorite.

Schlieffen Plan

Iraq is safer than six years ago and safer than when Saddam was in power. Still an awful place, still a conflict badly handled, but it's certainly better than before. In a decade Iraq will be like Egypt is now, and Egypt will be like Iraq is now. At best.

Whether it was the best thing for the US to do is a completely separate matter, but it certainly will end up being a good thing for Iraq in the end.

it was an unjustified invasion. Bring on the impeachment of Bush and Blair

Anyone who watches the news has seen that Iraq now has had its 2nd mostly deadliest month on record (civilian-wise) since the invasion, and America decides enough is enough? Not a victory whatsoever, but another Vietnam.
"We're losing so let's just leave them to their own devices"

That'll be hard to do since Bush isn't President and Blair isn't Prime Minister.

Come on on the enough is enough stuff. The pullout at the end of this month was set in 2008 under Bush. Things are a lot better than in 2005 at the worst of the violence. Iraq's still a sucky place but it will be OK enough in the end. Comparing it to Vietnam is a false analogy. Look at what Christopher Hitchens has to say about it for a very reasoned analysis of the differences between the wars from a guy who hated the Vietnam War but supports the Iraq War, and didn't really support Desert Storm.

Also it was justified. A major part of the justification turned out to be inaccurate, but not the non-compliance of Iraq with UN resolutions. Add to that the fact that Iraq had been shooting at US and British and others' aircraft in the no-fly zones since 1998. Was it the best idea ever thought up? No, but bumper sticker cries like "unjustified invasion" are pretty unjustified themselves.

Plus, can you imagine if one of Saddam's sons succeeded him? Or fought a civil war between them for control? Anything could have happened then. The successor son could have had another crack at Kuwait or Saudi Arabia or Iran. In a civil war Iran could have invaded to protect the Shiites and we'd have an even more powerful and influential Iran with nothing for the United States to do about it. Of course it would be wrong to justify the war based on what-ifs, but it would also be wrong to not consider that maybe doing nothing could have been much worse. Maybe.

Yussss, pot successfully stirred. Personally, I think that Custer's final stand was cool. Battle of little big horn. Go Natives!

Civil war is an 85% probability, even from American Strategists, but no, cause the trouble, accept 4400 deaths(measly) and leave... great game America lol

Oh yes, conveniently, you forget the real reason or publicized reason for the 2nd invasion--- oooohhh Iraq and Al-Qaeda are linked- NO proof, and since proven erronious, a little like the WMD argument for the first one no?

Definitely the War of the Bavarian Succession (July 1778 – May 1779). The last of the so called cabinets wars - just moving around armies and not battle - merely like chess. ;)

The monarchs which raised war against each other had a deal not to go into battle. ;)

A better thread would be favorite operation NAMES, e.g. Operation Just Cause, Operation Acid Gambit, Operation Market Garden

Without getting into semantics over what constitutes a civil war, the US military did prevent Iraq from being taken over by the radical Islamists during the worst of the Insurgency, something which wouldn't have happened in a civil war following post-Saddam crisis without the invasion. Again, that's no way to justify a war by using hypotheticals, but if Iraq were going to have a civil war better it certainly is better for the region and Iraq's future for it to be done with America involved, keeping the worst from winning.

"and leave... great game America lol"

You'd rather America stay?

Iraq and al Qaeda were linked. By very little. No one says no proof, but very little. And it turns out there wasn't a serious WMD program. That was a mistake unparalleled in our nation's history. But it was an honest mistake. An honest, terrible mistake.

Like I said before, and you would have noticed if you weren't busy puking talking points, Iraq is better today than it was before because Saddam was removed and democracy is at least a serious possibility. That doesn't mean it was the best choice for America, but Iraq will benefit from it in the long run. Benefit in the sort of way that India got English and railroads from British involvement.

So don't assume the US invasion was the worst thing that could have happened. Imagine a broken Iraq that got rid of Saddam itself with no US army to try to keep order and keep Iran out. Imagine Uday or Qusay ruling just as ruthlessly. It's easy to be against the war, it's a lot hard to really thing about it and realize the nuances.

My hats off to your trolling taylornottyler ;)

@Invictus: Iraq and al Qaeda weren't linked at all. Thats simply a lie as the WMD-thread from Iraq was. Saddam was a secular dictator and al Qaeda sets itself as a religiously justified organisation. Thats like fire and water. Everything that was taken as motivation to go to war in Iraq in Colin Powels speach at the security council was a lie. (Did anyone recognized that the copy of Picasso's "Guernica" at the security council was hidden that day?) If I'd had to guess, I would say it was a personal revenge for everything that came after 1990.

Nevertheless Iraq is better off without Saddams regime, at least in long term.

What a fascist thread, this forum reached a new high.

Not a new high, a new low.