I feel like there might be some pretty curious circumstances surrounding this.

quote:

Originally posted by UWM I feel like there might be some pretty curious circumstances surrounding this.

who cares about the helicopter.

losing 22 navy seals is a huge loss, especially since they were shot down like fish in a barrel.

quote:

Originally posted by nchs09 correct.

Didn't you just get your US citizenship?



Seriously, fuck off.

quote:

Originally posted by WittyHandle Didn't you just get your US citizenship? Seriously, fuck off.

seriously. ungrateful bastards.

quote:

Originally posted by nchs09 quote: Originally posted by Blake correct.

I have a question for both of you:











How could you possibly find this appropriate?

___________________

Now with extra singles!
my old stuff, not quite up to snuff - but I still dig it - UPDATED 9/23/2012

What I find interesting is the tolerance for casualties in US wars since the end of World War II has gone down significantly.

In WWII you had 30 people killed in a day... almost daily. In Korea it was almost as bad, in Vietnam it got a bit better, but the tolerance for death was a lot smaller.

It is now down to the point where we have lost just over 6000 men and women in TWO wars over TEN years. We lost over 50,000 men in roughly 8 years of fighting in Vietnam.

What is responsible for this shift in attitude and lower tolerance for deaths? By any regards the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are relatively "benign".

By stating this I in no way suggest that the deaths of any of the people in any of these wars are more or less tragic.

quote:

Originally posted by Joss Weatherby What is responsible for this shift in attitude and lower tolerance for deaths? By any regards the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are relatively "benign".

I think it's the opposite. People don't seem to care/even know that we're still in a war and that soldiers are dying on a daily basis out there. Back during Vietnam, people back home fought for the troops to come home, literally. The protests against our efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan seem to be minimal, even though many people believe it to be an unjust cause.

As for the death tolls, I think it comes down to better technology and equipment.

Maybe I misread your statement, though. Not totally sure.

quote:

Originally posted by OrangestO I think it's the opposite. People don't seem to care/even know that we're still in a war and that soldiers are dying on a daily basis out there. Back during Vietnam, people back home fought for the troops to come home, literally. The protests against our efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan seem to be minimal, even though many people believe it to be an unjust cause. As for the death tolls, I think it comes down to better technology and equipment. Maybe I misread your statement, though. Not totally sure.

Its far more apparent now, its on the news any time a soldier is killed. That was not the case in Vietnam and certainly not in WWII.

Personally I think it comes down to multiple factors. Better technology and the wars not being a conventional fight lead to fewer deaths which allows for media coverage. Add in a general feeling that the wars were either a mistake or have gone on for too long and the deaths begin to seem more and more pointless to some people. Also I do not think many people recognize that these wars are a lot less brutal, at least for our troops, than previous wars, so they do not have the ability to weigh the circumstances with other wars like Vietnam.

Even comparisons to the last major invasion of Afghanistan. The Soviets at this point in the war had lost 10 times as many soldiers as the US had (we have roughly lost 1,400 soldiers in the war there, at the end of the war for the Soviets they had lost 14,000 some).

I do agree that there is a general feeling of not being at war that dulls the over all feelings about casualties, but I think that goes hand in hand with the lower number. I think we are at a middle ground where we do not feel as a country like we are in a war, for that matter, THREE wars, but we have enough coverage of deaths to make people feel outraged/deeply saddened when they do occur.

My concern from all of this is that if there were ever another conventional conflict where the casualty count could be much higher in a shorter period of time, would the American people be able to stand for it, especially if it was a "legitimate" conflict.

quote:

Originally posted by Joss Weatherby What is responsible for this shift in attitude and lower tolerance for deaths? By any regards the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are relatively "benign".

You answered your own question:

quote:

Vietnam

Any war where casualties rise above a certain level, especially one being fought mostly in Asia, is inevitably going to become compared to Vietnam in the media and popular mind.

quote:

Originally posted by Tasty Onions You answered your own question: Any war where casualties rise above a certain level, especially one being fought mostly in Asia, is inevitably going to become compared to Vietnam in the media and popular mind.

I wasn't saying that they draw a comparison. If anything they lack common comparison in the media.

What I am saying is that level of response on the deaths of soldiers in these wars is higher than the response to the deaths in the Vietnam war when you compare the numbers. Individual deaths, or events gets national media coverage now.

What I am trying to say is that the US tolerance for the deaths of US troops is lower now then it was in Vietnam, and lower than it was in WWII.

I was saying that Vietnam is what lowered the tolerance. It was the breaking point, so to speak. If we get involved in some far away place with alien cultures and the conflict isn't wrapped up quickly, Americans don't want it.