MGZ wrote:Phoenix of Terra wrote:Very true. And bringing up Vietnam also brings up another good point, the homefront. I'm assuming the Chinese would be more prepared for huge casualties, but the US and Australia would probably be in an uproar over the huge losses that a ground war would cause.
true, and it seems like the number of "acceptable losses" for us western mindset people has been steadily shrinking over the years. people in the US are outraged at a few (3-4k) killed in the 6-7 years since our expeditions to the middle east began, but in WW2 we took that more casualties than that in one week and kept fighting.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kasserine_Pass
I'm pretty sure we took more on D-Day also, which was just 24 hours. I think people have the belief that because our military is as good as it is, we should be able to walk out of any vcampaign we wish with almost no casualties, such as what happened in Desert Shield/Storm. A long, occupation has never been the strong point of militaries, especially when restricted in their actions and ability to react against partisan groups, and in a peace-loving society where every death is magnified by the media.
Sorry, I digress. But the freedom of information has put a face on each of those losses and makes it harder for the American people, compassionate as we are, to turn the other way.




