NationStates Jolt Archive

I've noticed that the American people are becoming less tolerant of foriegn wars. In World War II, 2000 casualities in an engagement would've been considered minimal. But today, the Iraq War has, in total, created 2000 American casualities, and many are getting fed up with it.

Is it because we can now keep better track of units?

Is it because of all the media attention?

Is it because we're starting to place more value on individuals?

OR

Is it becuase we're starting to evolve a little...?

War is hell...

I've noticed that the American people are becoming less tolerant of foriegn wars. In World War II, 2000 casualities in an engagement would've been considered minimal. But today, the Iraq War has, in total, created 2000 American casualities, and many are getting fed up with it.

Is it because we can now keep better track of units?

Is it because of all the media attention?

Is it because we're starting to place more value on individuals?

OR

Is it becuase we're starting to evolve a little...?

War is hell...


i think its got more to do with the idealogical reasons behind this war and others

ww2 had soem genuine reasons

iraq- bush didnt like the bad man that tried to kill his daddy

But today, the Iraq War has, in total, created 2000 American casualities

2000 American deaths. A lot more have been wounded in a way that will severely affect their future lives, and those of their families.

i think its because our adventures since ww2 have shown us all too well that "all wars are not created equal".

there was no lack of tolerance in invading afghanistan. it was OK to go into iraq only because the president was successful in linking iraq with 9/11 in the minds of the majority of americans.

now that we realize that we were lied to and iraq presented no imminent threat we have lost our willingness to lose our sons and daughters in a fight that didnt need to be fought when it was.

losing a soldier isnt the same as losing an airplane. if we are going to put our military in harms way, we want to know that disrupting their lives and possibly losing their lives was necessary. we want to know that the war is being mangaged in the best possible way in order to minimize deaths.

i think we've become more sophisiticated.

This is obviously one of those threads I had best just ignore and hope will go away. :headbang:

This is obviously one of those threads I had best just ignore and hope will go away. :headbang:
Considering the fact that you posted on it I'd say you're not doing a very good job.

Considering the fact that you posted on it I'd say you're not doing a very good job.
:p

This newest war was fought over LIES, made by a LYING leader who told LIE after LIE about Iraq. With the complete LIE of Iraq's Connection between 9\11. Maybe we don't like wars over LIES.

This is obviously one of those threads I had best just ignore and hope will go away. :headbang:
What you don't like threads that challenge the Lies of the American Government.

Well, World War II was a war between most of the major, and some not so major, powers on the entire planet where Iraq is soldiers getting beat the hell up by forces that arn't even organized into a single military.

You would get sick of war which was justified on dodgy grounds and then you aren't getting any benefit to nation - then you look like you are losing.

It's because this war is bullshit. We are losing good people because of faulty information.

In World War II we had reasons to go into war, its different this time.

American involvement was initiated by Japan's sneak attack of Pearl Harbor. Prior to that, we helpe our friends with Lend/Lease, the Flying Tigers, etc. After the attack on Pearl, we went to war with Japan, and for some odd reason, two days later, Germany declared war on us. Not vice versa. There were some schemes under way to provoke Japan into starting a war, and many people thought we should have gone to Europe anyway.
Good thing we did, or Fass would have been executed by the Fascist government of occupied Sweden, or forced to wear the pink triangle waiting to be shipped off to Dachau. Or do you believe that never happened, too?
As for this war, many many things behind it, some good, some bad, just like any other human action in history. I support it, and the troops over there. If you don't like it, I am sorry, and wish you a nice day.

This newest war was fought over LIES, made by a LYING leader who told LIE after LIE about Iraq. With the complete LIE of Iraq's Connection between 9\11. Maybe we don't like wars over LIES.


What you don't like threads that challenge the Lies of the American Government.
You poor fucker. Now look what will happen.

You poor fucker. Now look what will happen.
??? What will happen? I see nothing happening. Just the same song and dance in the country and in this forum.

??? What will happen? I see nothing happening. Just the same song and dance in the country and in this forum.
A shitstorm probably. Either that or nothing will happen and the thread will continue as usual.

I've noticed that the American people are becoming less tolerant of foriegn wars. In World War II, 2000 casualities in an engagement would've been considered minimal. But today, the Iraq War has, in total, created 2000 American casualities, and many are getting fed up with it.

Is it because we can now keep better track of units?

Is it because of all the media attention?

Is it because we're starting to place more value on individuals?

OR

Is it becuase we're starting to evolve a little...?

War is hell...

There are probably at least two bit reasons.

Firstly, the Nazi army was one of the most efficient and (comparatively, at least) advanced the modern world has seen for a while, and it was funded by what was, at the time, a superpower. 2,000 casualties against the Axis forces in the largest war the world has ever seen cannot, under any circumstances, be compared to 2,000 casualties against a bunch of maniacal nutjobs with some homemade bombs.

Secondly, few people doubted the need for WW2 (well, they did until they got slapped in the face anyway, a common trait over on that side of the pond from the looks of things). Lots of people doubt the need for what has happened in Iraq. Few people believed the motivations for WW2 could be questioned. Lots of people believe the motivations for the Iraq War could be questioned, and there have been more than enough investigations and lies thrown around to justify such questions.

Obviously, 2,000 casualties in a war you disagree with, against some poorly-trained, poorly-armed religious nuts, is going to seem much worse to you than 2,000 casualties against a superpower in a war that you do agree with. Especially considering that the Iraq War was declared over quite some time ago.

Have we become more skeptical of the "reasons" our government sends our men and women to war? Obviously. You should hear my Grandmother talk about how, in WWII, the high school kids would lie about their ages to get enrolled.
I don't think we see that kind of unbridled enthusiasm today.
The reasons for which our government declared war were tenuous at best, and misleading at the worst. There were no WMD. Iraq didn't have jack shit to do with 9/11. The tragic events that happened that day were used as a springboard to further another agenda, one having nothing to with the other.
It certainly lined the pockets of the private players in the military-industrial complex.

Without our own Pearl Harbor to speak of, yeah. I'd say the American people have become a lot more skeptical about war, and why it's "necessary".
Was it?

Other reasons include the low casualty rate and relative ease that the US had in the First Gulf War, and also the differences in technology. Then it was essentially equal technologies, at lower levels of technology, against some of the most powerful nations of the time, in a close and personal combat style. Now we have cruise missles, tanks that can accurately shoot over a mile while moving, long range helicopters, and ships that can hit Baghdad from the Persian Gulf. Something that would have cost dozens, hundreds, may be even more casualties in WWII now can be done sometimes with no casualties. People are used to these low rates now, so 2,000 becomes alot, especially against an insurgency like Iraq (and Afghanistan, if anyone still remembers the country).

American don’t like to loose. Look at Gulf War I, the last war where we kicked ass, everyone loves that war.
Without our own Pearl Harbor to speak of, yeah. I'd say the American people have become a lot more skeptical about war, and why it's "necessary".
Was it?
I wonder how many Americans would have been so willing to go to war if they knew that FDR had deliberately goaded the Japanese into attacking Pearl Harbor.

Other reasons include the low casualty rate and relative ease that the US had in the First Gulf War, and also the differences in technology. Then it was essentially equal technologies, at lower levels of technology, against some of the most powerful nations of the time, in a close and personal combat style. Now we have cruise missles, tanks that can accurately shoot over a mile while moving, long range helicopters, and ships that can hit Baghdad from the Persian Gulf. Something that would have cost dozens, hundreds, may be even more casualties in WWII now can be done sometimes with no casualties. People are used to these low rates now, so 2,000 becomes alot, especially against an insurgency like Iraq (and Afghanistan, if anyone still remembers the country).

This hits it on the head, I think. In WWII, we were supposed to lose a lot of lives. We were fighting a superior army. In Iraq, we're not supposed to lose many lives. We were supposed to completely dominate this war.

I wonder how many Americans would have been so willing to go to war if they knew that FDR had deliberately goaded the Japanese into attacking Pearl Harbor.

Probably still a lot, because even if it was the US goading Japan into attacking, Japan would still have attacked. It's way different than the justifications for Iraq.

All wars shouldbe fought with pranks, pies, stun guns or wooden swords.

Or any mixture of the above. :)

In my non Historologist opinion, I doubt that anything has really changed as far as Americans and war since WWII. The US seems to only succeed in entering wars if started by some sudden incident.
The US stepped into WWI in reaction to unrestricted German U-Boat work, WWII was a response to Pearl Harbour, and Afghanistan was a response to 9/11. Opposing that, you have the current Iraq mess, Korea, and Vietnam, all three of which were started by leaders (or the UN) getting a bee in their bonnets.
This reflects the cynicism that most USians cling too. Unless you can prove to the people, via a big explosion, that someone might be dangerous, they'll naturally disbelieve it. Hence, references to the War on Terror, if Muslim nations are all ruled by Terrorists, then 9/11 was the smoking crater and the Crusade can begin. People, however, don't seem to be buying it, much to Bush's chagrin.

This is obviously one of those threads I had best just ignore and hope will go away. :headbang:
This is why I have no respect for you. You're clearly trying to provoke people into engaging you. If you really wanted to ignore the thread, you would not post in it.

Why don't you just come out with your argument, if you have any?

The American people aren't becoming less tolerant of war they're becoming less tolerant of never hearing any good news about the war.

The war won't stop if the US, UK, Australia pack up and go home. The terrrorists won't waste a second in plotting the destruction of the West and turning the West into a Muslim caliphate.

So even if they are tired of the war, so what, the alternative is our destruction. I look forward to the day when the Muslims get tired of murderers killing innocent people in the name Allah.

This newest war was fought over LIES, made by a LYING leader who told LIE after LIE about Iraq. With the complete LIE of Iraq's Connection between 9\11. Maybe we don't like wars over LIES.


What you don't like threads that challenge the Lies of the American Government.

Prove the lies. Prove that Bush knowingly lied.

Well, World War II was a war between most of the major, and some not so major, powers on the entire planet where Iraq is soldiers getting beat the hell up by forces that arn't even organized into a single military.

Funny. We're winning in Iraq. The enemy is getting their asses handed to them on a silver plate. A hell of a lot more of them have been killed or wounded.

It's because this war is bullshit. We are losing good people because of faulty information.

In World War II we had reasons to go into war, its different this time.

We only had 1 reason to go to war. Pearl Harbor. Even then, our Declaration of War was only on Japan. It wasn't until Germany and Italy declared war on us. Something they didn't have to do but did it anyway.

American involvement was initiated by Japan's sneak attack of Pearl Harbor. Prior to that, we helpe our friends with Lend/Lease, the Flying Tigers, etc. After the attack on Pearl, we went to war with Japan, and for some odd reason, two days later, Germany declared war on us. Not vice versa. There were some schemes under way to provoke Japan into starting a war, and many people thought we should have gone to Europe anyway.
Good thing we did, or Fass would have been executed by the Fascist government of occupied Sweden, or forced to wear the pink triangle waiting to be shipped off to Dachau. Or do you believe that never happened, too?
As for this war, many many things behind it, some good, some bad, just like any other human action in history. I support it, and the troops over there. If you don't like it, I am sorry, and wish you a nice day.

Well said Armorvia. Well said indeed.

American don’t like to loose. Look at Gulf War I, the last war where we kicked ass, everyone loves that war.

And out of that war, came Gulf War II.

I wonder how many Americans would have been so willing to go to war if they knew that FDR had deliberately goaded the Japanese into attacking Pearl Harbor.

I would love to see proof of this statement.

This hits it on the head, I think. In WWII, we were supposed to lose a lot of lives. We were fighting a superior army. In Iraq, we're not supposed to lose many lives. We were supposed to completely dominate this war.

And we did. You do know that we are in a different phase right? The war itself ended on April 9, 2003 when Baghdad was taken. Or if you prefer, December of that same year when we captured Saddam Hussein.

Now we are in the Reconstruction Phase fighting of an insurgency. This is a different phase.

The American people aren't becoming less tolerant of war they're becoming less tolerant of never hearing any good news about the war.

And there is so much good news that you do not hear about. The Press doesn't care about Good News. They want blood and guts. If it bleeds, it leads. That is the only reason why you don't here much good news about Iraq.

We have had an election, a Constitution ratification, and now we have another election in December. All done in the face of terrorists who want to disrupt it and cause a civil war.

There is also a hell of a lot more good news than what I just posted. For those, you have to do a little investigating.

The war won't stop if the US, UK, Australia pack up and go home. The terrrorists won't waste a second in plotting the destruction of the West and turning the West into a Muslim caliphate.

This is 100% accurate.

So even if they are tired of the war, so what, the alternative is our destruction. I look forward to the day when the Muslims get tired of murderers killing innocent people in the name Allah.

I think that is starting to happen because support for terrorists in the muslim world, is starting to decline.

Funny. We're winning in Iraq. The enemy is getting their asses handed to them on a silver plate. A hell of a lot more of them have been killed or wounded.

the north vietnamese got their asses handed to them on a regular basis too.

didnt stop them from winning.

didnt stop them from winning.

Oh, boy...now you're going start him on the great military victories of Vietnam. You just had to say it, didn't you?

I've noticed that the American people are becoming less tolerant of foriegn wars. In World War II, 2000 casualities in an engagement would've been considered minimal. But today, the Iraq War has, in total, created 2000 American casualities, and many are getting fed up with it.

Is it because we can now keep better track of units?

Is it because of all the media attention?

Is it because we're starting to place more value on individuals?

OR

Is it becuase we're starting to evolve a little...?

War is hell...

1. This white house administration is full of idiots and most Americans know it, some refuse to acknowledge it, others don't care and just want less taxes or their guns back, and a few are dumbe enough to think that god is in control of the white house. God's got bad government management skills, I guess.


2. The administration since day 1 has been an activist administration and has tried to force its agenda. The problem with this is they used a LOT of deceptive methods to achieve this and paraded themselves as war leaders. So instead of being main stream moderates that people can trust in domestic and foreign policies, we have a bunch of dumbasses grinding their ax then wondering why so many people don't trust them and are fighting them at every turn.

3. Media

4. Lack of a reason to be there revealing itself while a lot of Americans are dying for a country we aren't responsible for untill the Bushes invaded it.

Evolution doesn't mean one is a pacifist. That's just another form of no testicals and less effectiveness if something that requires force presents itself. Non-interventionalism is just a BETTER policy for Americans so we don't have to deal with problems that are not of our own country. I think you need to learn what evolution means.

A shitstorm probably. Either that or nothing will happen and the thread will continue as usual.
Prove the lies. Prove that Bush knowingly lied.
A time-delayed shitstorm.
Take cover! :D

Good thing we did, or Fass would have been executed by the Fascist government of occupied Sweden, or forced to wear the pink triangle waiting to be shipped off to Dachau.

How old do you think I am?

Good thing we did, or Fass would have been executed by the Fascist government of occupied Sweden, or forced to wear the pink triangle waiting to be shipped off to Dachau. Or do you believe that never happened, too?Not that this has to do anything with the thread, but Sweden was/is difficult to occupy. I don't think the Nazis would've taken Sweden until at least after they'd taken the rest of Europe - including Switzerland.

If the United States had not gone to war with Germany, the Nazis would have had all the time in the world to occupy and pacify Sweden, and eventually even Switzerland.
As for are we tired of war, no, regular war is not tiring. Occupations are wearisome - who knows when we declared the occupation of Germany over? 12 September 1990 - seriously. How long of that was under Nazi supporters and remmnants fighting a guerrilla/terrorist war? I believe about 1955, and that was a defeated, war weary, smashed flat country, not one relatively untouched like Iraq. Those of you crying Iraq was smashed, refer to pictures of Germany at the end of WWII, for a reality check.
Also, the constant media pressure keeps the "war" in forefront, when it is nothing of the kind. More people have died in Washington DC than in Iraq - let's pull out of DC!

I think that is starting to happen because support for terrorists in the muslim world, is starting to decline.
What do you base this on?


Type in Muslim Terrorist on Google News...



CBBC newsround (audio) Muslim-terrorists Bomb Hindus in India
PHXNews, AZ - 9 hours ago
In the city of New Delhi, three bombs go off in crowded markets and a bus. At least 65 killed in the attacks, so far. Al Qaida is ...
India bomb blasts kill at least 61; PM blames terrorists Forbes
Three terrorist bombs kill 58 in New Delhi Washington Times
India Blasts May Be Aimed at Derailing Peace Efforts (Update1) Bloomberg
Reuters.uk - Malaysia Star - all 465 related »
Indonesian Police Seek Muslim Terrorists in Bali Bombing
Los Angeles Times, CA - Oct 5, 2005
... Noordin Mohammed Top, both leading members of the extremist Muslim group, Jemaah ... of the suspected restaurant bombers to Jemaah Islamiah terrorists convicted in ...

Muslim terrorists kill Hindus in Kashmir while the quake victims ...
SouthAsia Network, Asia - Oct 10, 2005
On one side India is shipping airloads of help for victims in Pakistan and on other hand Pakistan trained terrorists strike in India slitting throats of ...

Dozens Killed as Muslim Terrorists Attack Russian City
CNSNews.com, VA - Oct 13, 2005
... KBR and other southern Russian regions have seen a rise in attacks by Muslim terrorists. In December 2004, armed men raided the ...


RTE Interactive Danish police arrest two suspected of aiding suspected Muslim ...
Canton Repository (subscription), OH - Oct 29, 2005
... Terrorists have not hit Denmark in 20 years, but the London bombings in July stirred fears that the Scandinavian country could be targeted for its ...
Suspected terrorists arrested Bradenton Herald
4 suspected terrorists arrested in Denmark NewKerala.com
4 suspected terrorists arrested in Denmark Science Daily (press release)
AKI - EiTB - all 161 related »
Larijani: Muslim World Must Support Palestinian Terrorists
Persian Journal, Iran - 19 hours ago
Secretary of Iran's Supreme National Security Council (SNSC) Ali Larijani said here Friday that one of significant and effective factors in settlement of the ...

Iran lets senior arab-muslim terrorists roam free
Persian Journal, Iran - Oct 27, 2005
Iran is permitting around 25 high-ranking al Qaeda members to roam free in the country's capital, including three sons of Osama bin Laden, a German monthly ...

Jordanian plot defuses WMD fears
Fort Wayne Journal Gazette, IN - 3 hours ago
... Terrorists linked to al-Qaida had assembled a fearsome array of chemicals and ... One fatwa, or Muslim religious decree, issued by radical Saudi cleric Nasser al ...

The rise of the fall Guy
Times Online, UK - Oct 28, 2005
... That is why two of these books make the connection between the Catholic conspirators of the early 17th century and the Muslim terrorists of the early 21st ...


BBC News Terrorists convicted sans terror law
Manila Times, Philippines - 1 hour ago
... The verdict signaled the government’s determination to bring terrorists to justice and enhance the country’s security, Bunye added. ...
Death for Makati bombers Manila Bulletin
Islamic bombers get death sentences United Press International
RP court sentences militants to death China Post
Bohol Chronicle - ABS CBN News - all 84 related »

And we did. You do know that we are in a different phase right? The war itself ended on April 9, 2003 when Baghdad was taken. Or if you prefer, December of that same year when we captured Saddam Hussein.

Now we are in the Reconstruction Phase fighting of an insurgency. This is a different phase.

Why? Because we said so? Obviously those people that are still shooting at us disagree with your assessment that the war is over.

Why? Because we said so? Obviously those people that are still shooting at us disagree with your assessment that the war is over.

I did say that this is a different phase right? Yea I do believe I did.

I did say that this is a different phase right? Yea I do believe I did.

Different phase of what, sir?

How old do you think I am?
17-19 at most. Trouble is, if the Nazis had won the war, do you think they would have lost power by now? That was my point.

Less tolerant of American casualties.

If we had robots that were occasionally getting trashed over there, instead of US soldiers, no one here would really care in numbers large enough to make the news.

Ever wonder why we're developing robots for military purposes? That's why.

20 years from now, the US will be flying in planes invisible to radar, shooting people with lasers, and parachuting robots into foreign countries.

Robots don't sleep. Their decisionmaking process is not clouded by conscience, or delusions of morality. And if some insurgents manage to kill a robot, all they have is a small heap of electronic junk.

17-19 at most.

22.

Trouble is, if the Nazis had won the war, do you think they would have lost power by now? That was my point.

I'd like to think so. Nevertheless, I doubt Dachau would still be in service, and that I would be around at all to be killed, as my parents, or their parents, probably never would have met. Hypotheticals really are pointless.

well as far as military tacticians are concerned this has been a flawless war, as bad as it sounds 2,000 people in the amount of time we have been in iraq is comparibly nothing. in veitnam if you were dropped into a hot zone your life expectancy was 19 seconds. the casualtys in every war up to now have been astronomical compared to iraq. the war over there isnt as bad as the media makes it sound, sure there are car bombs and attacks but we swept aside there army in afew weeks. if there media wasn't tightly regulated there wouldnt be any resistance because they would say "o crap our army got owned" and surrender

Prove the lies. Prove that Bush knowingly lied.

I'm not going to bother getting all of the Valid information on how Bush knew that there was no Connection between Osama and Saddam, not to mention that the only WMD info that they had in the past 4 years was the buying of a few Metal Tubes. Which Bush used it to try and say they were building WMDs to the UN. When all other info pointed that Iraq wasn't building WMDs.

I'm not going to bother getting all of the Valid information on how Bush knew that there was no Connection between Osama and Saddam, not to mention that the only WMD info that they had in the past 4 years was the buying of a few Metal Tubes. Which Bush used it to try and say they were building WMDs to the UN. When all other info pointed that Iraq wasn't building WMDs.

I guess you will overlook the UNSCOM report that said that 1800 gallons of weaponized anthrax was missing since 1993. Not a US report, an UNSCOM report.

It, unlike other biologicals, lasts nearly forever. (600 years, according to the UK MoD).

I guess you will overlook the UNSCOM report that said that 1800 gallons of weaponized anthrax was missing since 1993. Not a US report, an UNSCOM report.

It, unlike other biologicals, lasts nearly forever. (600 years, according to the UK MoD).
You mean this?
http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/Bx27.htm

If it's there than where the hell is it? Besides the WMDs that Bush concentrated on were Nukes mainly.

And it seems they don't know how much Anthrax was made, the official report states around 5000 litres, a news article said 8500 litres.

http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2003/18513.htm
Strangely The State department article declares over 25000 liters!

Heh. I'm sorry folks. I'm just kinda jumping in on this thread. I only read through the first page. I find it funny that people were speaking of this war being founded in lies. I truly got a kick out of that. Of course everything about this governments reasons for invading Iraq were lies. That's all too painfully obvious. What you need to keep in mind though is that this whole country is founded in lies. From top to bottom, inside and out. Good ole George W. is just following the footsteps of his forefathers. I just love it when people act so defiant against this countries most current bed of mistruths. Acting as though it's some big shocker.

Also, in response to the topic of this thread, I'd pretty much stick with two reasons why the 2,000 mark has gotten so much "fan fare". 1., we're now a country of pot bellied wussies. We're soft and weak and afraid of shedding a little blood. 2., the media (Oh curse that foul media!!!) is so freakin' on top of every little news item. "Fox Alert! It's getting cloudy over Georgia. Complete towns evacuated. Fox Alert! Some schmuck in the White House blah blah blah." You can't turn the T.V. on without seeing some alert about some horrible thing happening. I'm surprised the Fox Network hasn't moved its alerts to EVERY channel. Turn on Nickelodeon and see "Fox Alert! Sponge Bob Squarepants leaked the name of a CIA agent to Patrick".....

Bah. Perhaps I'm wrong. Perhaps the media has nothing to do with it.

I would love to see proof of this statement.
The McCollum memo, look it up.
But then again, you conservative types aren’t much for memos, eh?

well as far as military tacticians are concerned this has been a flawless war, as bad as it sounds 2,000 people in the amount of time we have been in iraq is comparibly nothing. in veitnam if you were dropped into a hot zone your life expectancy was 19 seconds. the casualtys in every war up to now have been astronomical compared to iraq. the war over there isnt as bad as the media makes it sound, sure there are car bombs and attacks but we swept aside there army in afew weeks. if there media wasn't tightly regulated there wouldnt be any resistance because they would say "o crap our army got owned" and surrender
2000 is something, especially when you consider that all our soldiers are clad in kevlar now and casualties are almost never delayed in being wisked to medical units.

We're the most technically advanced military on the planet, technology that's designed to keep our fighting men and women alive. And that's what the difference through the ages really is, technology has advanced and less people die, at least fewer of those that have the technology. If you're on the recieving end... well nobody back home seems concerned about them, civilian or hostile.

Even WWII casualties were nothing compared to those of the WWI. Wars before that were meatgrinders too. The American civil war had a horrendous caualty rate. And that was the beginning of effective battlefield medicine. Before that to be wounded often meant just a slower death. Before firearms history is filled with bloody battles that left 10's of thousands or more dead in a single engagement. So I have to go with the 'more evolved' option, somewhat. We still feel the need to kill others at a high rate, we're just not as accepting of dying at a high rate.

The McCollum memo, look it up.
But then again, you conservative types aren’t much for memos, eh?

Show it to me.

We may as well give up. Corneliu is a walking Godwin device.

Is it because we can now keep better track of units?

Perhaps this is the case, especially on the local level. Here in PA when someone from around here dies there is usually a memorial service, when one comes back there is usually a celebration... I even saw a few signs reading "Congratulations [insert soldiers name here]." I guess it just makes more of a splash when something good or bad happens then in previous wars.

Is it because of all the media attention?

Absolutely, there is an important distinction between soldiers and civilians with the latter simply not being in a state of mind to understand conflict because they have never experienced it; it’s foreign to them. Also, because they don't understand it, they fear it, because they fear it, they hate it. You said it yourself, in past wars two thousand casualties was barely worth consideration... it was expected even, they ordered a whole hell of a lot of body bags because of it. The average civilian has absolutely no concept of scope or perspective; in ancient times 60,000 people could die in a single day in a single battle and this was normal. Because war was so common people generally understood it and consequently didn't fear it or hate it. Instead they signed up and became one of the thousands hoping for glory and reward. Today most people can't even wrap their mind around the concept of 60,000 people dying... look what happened when 3000 died on 9/11.

The media throws all this in their faces and they aren't in a condition to deal with it... without them being able to see it war is simply an abstract concept that may or may not be happening somewhere else in the world that doesn't concern them. Observe the apathy towards un-televised genocide, towards millions starving, towards total oppression, and then observe the fury a mere 2000 men and women rouses when it is shown on TV and talked about. Every. Fucking. Day.

Is it because we're starting to place more value on individuals?

Refer to the previous two points. It isn't just "something happening somewhere else" anymore.

Is it becuase we're starting to evolve a little...?

War is hell...

The world is how it is today because at the core of our being we are ruthless killers, evolution made us that it will not unmake that. Ever. At the heart of the idea itself is unfettered competition which in the human world manifests itself in cold domination, business, and bloodshed. If you are expecting it to someday make us pacifists you are delusional. It’s escalation in its purest form.

We may as well give up. Corneliu is a walking Godwin device.

Funny har har. Why don't you address it to me personally.

I just don't think the US has the stomach for a stretched out conflicts...

I've noticed that the American people are becoming less tolerant of foriegn wars. In World War II, 2000 casualities in an engagement would've been considered minimal. But today, the Iraq War has, in total, created 2000 American casualities, and many are getting fed up with it.

Is it because we can now keep better track of units?

Is it because of all the media attention?

Is it because we're starting to place more value on individuals?

OR

Is it becuase we're starting to evolve a little...?

War is hell...

No one in their right mind wants their country to be involved in wars. However, sometimes it's unavoidable, like World War II, and people should be supportive of the country during those times.

i think its because our adventures since ww2 have shown us all too well that "all wars are not created equal".

there was no lack of tolerance in invading afghanistan. it was OK to go into iraq only because the president was successful in linking iraq with 9/11 in the minds of the majority of americans.

now that we realize that we were lied to and iraq presented no imminent threat we have lost our willingness to lose our sons and daughters in a fight that didnt need to be fought when it was.

losing a soldier isnt the same as losing an airplane. if we are going to put our military in harms way, we want to know that disrupting their lives and possibly losing their lives was necessary. we want to know that the war is being mangaged in the best possible way in order to minimize deaths.

i think we've become more sophisiticated.
I think it was Tolstoy (?) who said "an army will have reached its greatest level of sophistication when the enlisted soldier knows enough to shoot his commanding officer and go home."

If nothing else good comes of this sorry adventure, it will at least prove that a decent number of Americans are not totally gullible pawns of the state; that we're willing to fight and die to protect our loved ones and our principles, but not to protect the profit margins of the military-industrial complex or the ego trip of some wannabe emperor (clothes-less variety), and that we know when we're being lied to, and we don't think it's okay.

I've noticed that the American people are becoming less tolerant of foriegn wars. In World War II, 2000 casualities in an engagement would've been considered minimal. But today, the Iraq War has, in total, created 2000 American casualities, and many are getting fed up with it.
Is it because we can now keep better track of units?
Is it because of all the media attention?
Is it because we're starting to place more value on individuals?
OR
Is it becuase we're starting to evolve a little...?
War is hell...
#1 - Synchronize this thread with "Why do people hte Hippies" and you will have a partial answer. Hippyness breeds squeemishness.
#2 - Media. During WWII mommies/hippies didn't get to see the battleground.
#3 - The reasons for Iraq were insufficient.