www.ditl.org

I'd say when it is compared to what the general public's threshold is. Its been a constant trend that the public is willing to put up with less and less blood from conflict. What shocks us now did not 20 years ago and so on. It also does not help that we now have near instant reporting, their faces on TV screens, it makes them much more human. Compare that to WW1 & WW2 where you were reading names and didn't hear their story and it makes it easier to accept.

I'd say that the trend has started to reverse itself. At the very least the public as a whole are once again accepting the fact that wars involve people on both sides getting killed, and not just those on the other side. Certainly there's a lot more willingness to accept casualties as unpleasent but unavoidable in Afghanistan and Iraq, as opposed to the situation in Kosovo where it seemed that winning the war was considered secondary to avoiding NATO casualties.

Captain Seafort wrote:I'd say that the trend has started to reverse itself. At the very least the public as a whole are once again accepting the fact that wars involve people on both sides getting killed, and not just those on the other side. Certainly there's a lot more willingness to accept casualties as unpleasent but unavoidable in Afghanistan and Iraq, as opposed to the situation in Kosovo where it seemed that winning the war was considered secondary to avoiding NATO casualties.

That's true, I'm sure throughout history this trend has been up and down, at least depending on the situation. I think that is at play here too, In Afghanistan in particular you have a situation where the Terrorists physically attacked NATO, in Kosovo though it was largely an internal conflict.

Caualties are also less acceptable in a war that doesn't enjoy widespread public support.

It's really a combination of all the factors mentioned.
With the advent of TV, people can now see what's going on in these battlezones.
With the creation of 25 hour a day news networks reporters are even more eager to venture out into the danger zones to get the latest info on what's going on, including numbers of casualties taken in the last assaults.
As time goes on, people seem to be more of the opinion that war is/should be a clean event with few lives lost on both sides.
And unpopular war that takes many casualties will become even less popular.

Rochey wrote:...As time goes on, people seem to be more of the opinion that war is/should be a clean event with few lives lost on both sides...

Like if the US had invaded Pitcairn Island, the people would be totally cool with the progress of the war?

Seriously, "war = clean event" is the same as: "rain falls up", or "Bush was a great president". It doesn't make any sense at all.

Indeed.

Tsukiyumi wrote:

Rochey wrote:...As time goes on, people seem to be more of the opinion that war is/should be a clean event with few lives lost on both sides...

Like if the US had invaded Pitcairn Island, the people would be totally cool with the progress of the war?

Seriously, "war = clean event" is the same as: "rain falls up", or "Bush was a great president". It doesn't make any sense at all.

It doesn't matter if it makes any sense or not, the Human Race is full of illogic such as this. People want it to be a bloodless deal, they want us to push a button and have it done but it doesn't work that way.

KuvahMagh wrote:...People want it to be a bloodless deal, they want us to push a button and have it done but it doesn't work that way.

Right. At least 9/10 people are morons.

Rochey wrote:With the creation of 25 hour a day news networks

And yet again a perfect example of Rocheys ability to keep time.

So he is also travelling around the world continuously, in a way that his day has 25 hours? That's creepy. Add to that that he is an Irish evil computer mainframe, now it is also capable of travelling of at least 1.6697916 km/hour continuously.

That's a rather flattering picture of you, Rochey. The lighting really brings out your... er... case metal.

I'm flattered, Tsu.