Has the world become too soft.

[coporal_punishment 0]

50 years ago 10,000 troops dying (which was far less then troops lost in the battle of the buldge and in the retreat of Dunkirk) was considered okay, but today when we loose lets say 20 troops in combat we whine as though we are lossing alot.

I really can't find a reason why we can't except loss.

My only conclusion is that in wars like World War II the allies were fighting a country which was pretty much on equal terms to hence loosing troops to someone which matched your army was exceptable, but nowadays we believe we are fighting a weaker army we believe we are invunrable and hence we shouldn't loose any troops hence this is why we whine soo much.

What's your oponions if you agree and I'd also like to here oponions if you don't agree with the world getting too soft.

[turms 0]

I think its a matter of justification. WW2 was justified for americans. Iraq war is not. A nation can sacrifice more to a matter what it believes and what is right, if the moral of rest of the world and its own citizens are with the nation.

[pang 0]

rather ask yourself why we don´t hear any daily death- statistic of starved children in the "3rd" world.

and no, the world hasn´t become too soft, dude. it´s the media that has become more powerfull and influencing than ever before.

thank you,

my name is pang, live from brainwashington for channel 9.

[Mr. Snrub 0]

I think we need to differentiate between "whining" and being genuiniely concerned for the welfare of our countrymen. These days, concern for loss of life in wartime is proportional to the believed necessity of the war. If we stand to lose a lot if we are defeated, then the public will tolerate higher losses. I don't think it has anything to do with the relative abilities of two opposing armies.

Oh and BTW, there isn't any such thing as being "too soft" - the ultimate to goal is for everyone to be 100% "soft". That way, no country will risk war for fear of people dying. That's the way it should be.

[Gollum1 0]

It's simple, 50 years ago soldiers that many soldiers died in battle, nowadays, for example, the U.S is so powerful that they practically don't lose any troops at all fighting 3rd world countries like Afghanistan and Iraq.

It just wouldn't have worked to treat 10,000 soldiers as a terrible tragedy 50 years ago, you would have to mourn harder and harder with each loss and be in mourning all the damn time and not be able to work.

The amount of mourning adjusts to the amount of casualties.

It's kind of hard to express it, I hope you get my meaning.

And what's this "world"? No-one is constantly mourning, say, the Rwanda genocide of 800.000 people in 1994, but the WTC attacks of 3000 people killed are expected to be mourned all over the world. It's the Western world, with its low amount of casualties, that has become more sensitive...

[denoir 0]

The "softeness" is very much one-sided. Nobody knows really how many Iraqi soldiers died in the war but the roughest estimates say tens of thousands. In that respect the only difference from WW2 is that only one side takes the casualties.

[Longinius 1]

Some things that effect our outlook might be...

1. Class based societies. In the wars of the past, few people of importance cared how many workers and farmers that died on the battlefield.

2. Increased media coverage. We now get faces to every casualty, and we get to see grieving families etc.

3. Indifference. To many westerners the battles seem distant and irrelivant. "Why should we die for someone else? Its not like we are fighting for our own sakes".

4. To many people to busy being know-it-alls and blowing up every attack or assault in media. "5 soldiers died in ambush. Coalition forces losing the war!" yes I made that up, but I think the point still stands.

5. Increased influence of the individual in democratic societies and better organised anti-war organisations.

[WhoCares 0]

There is a famous quote, might even be used in the OFP death sequences, and it is something like this:

Quote[/b] ]A single Death is a tragedy. A million Death is just a statistic.

(just checked, it is from Stalin)

While you can imagine the loss of a father or brother and the grief and hardship caused by it, a million Death is an abstract number beyond imagination.

And it might not even be something new, but I guess it is more based in prehistoric history.

Think of a little tribe that loses its best hunter. The trouble caused by this would be a formative event for every remaining individual of the tribe. Far worse then a single loss is today.

[miles teg 1]

Yup... no teary eyes here for dead Iraqis.

As one of my fellow Texans put it, "That's just one less rag head in this world who we bestowed martyrdom upon."

Of coarse I don't agree with that horribly racist statement but nevertheless that's a very persistent attitude towards any dead Arabs or Muslims.

Americans are not soft by any means. WWII was a REAL fight for the survival of democracy and freedom. There was NO denying this. If the Soviet Union had invaded West Germany during the Cold War you could bet that Americans would have been willing to take any casualties as long as it meant victory.

But over little "police action" conflicts all over the world and invading countries to boot out dictators, no Americans don't like seeing alot of dead Americans over such minor conflicts...of coarse now Iraq has become a quagmire and is bringing back the ghost of Vietnam which is the big reason for this fear of American casualties over a stupid war.

But at any rate, like someone else said, IT SHOULD BE OUR GOAL for the world to be VERY soft concerning casualties.

Value for human life is a GOOD thing.

Some of you may not agree with that, but if not then I pity you for having such low regard for human life. Politicians should take the utmost care when sending soldiers to battle because even though they are soldiers, they are still human beings with families and loved ones who have no choice about whether to serve or not.

This is a HUGE responsibility on the part of politicians who all too often are eager to gamble with the lives of brave soldiers.

That is one reason why Bush disgusts me.

Chris G.

aka-Miles Teg<GD>

[Akira 0]

I can't speak for anyone but myself, but:

I don't think its "softness". I think it's more "Is this necessary?" Do people really have to die for this?

As stated before, WW2 was more of a Crusade against an easily definable "evil".

Now its gotten to the point where "evil" is a catch-phrase, and there is no great crusade. One would have thought that by the year 2004 that we would have become a bit more enlightened and realized none of this is really necessary. But apparently that was hoping for way too much.

[Cpt. FrostBite 0]

Yup... no teary eyes here for dead Iraqis.  

As one of my fellow Texans put it, "That's just one less rag head in this world who we bestowed martyrdom upon."

Of coarse I don't agree with that horribly racist statement  but nevertheless that's a very persistent attitude towards any dead Arabs or Muslims.  

Americans are not soft by any means.  WWII was a REAL fight for the survival of democracy and freedom.  There was NO denying this.  If the Soviet Union had invaded West Germany during the Cold War you could bet that Americans would have been willing to take any casualties as long as it meant victory.

But over little "police action" conflicts all over the world and invading countries to boot out dictators, no Americans don't like seeing alot of dead Americans over such minor conflicts...of coarse now Iraq has become a quagmire and is bringing back the ghost of Vietnam which is the big reason for this fear of American casualties over a stupid war.

But at any rate, like someone else said, IT SHOULD BE OUR GOAL for the world to be VERY soft concerning casualties.

Value for human life is a GOOD thing.  

Some of you may not agree with that, but if not then I pity you for having such low regard for human life.  Politicians should take the utmost care when sending soldiers to battle because even though they are soldiers, they are still human beings with families and loved ones who have no choice about whether to serve or not.

This is a HUGE responsibility on the part of politicians who all too often are eager to gamble with the lives of brave soldiers.

That is one reason why Bush disgusts me.

Chris G.

aka-Miles Teg<GD>

I agree with the second part of you message. Particulary about the politicians. Like a soldier said after somalia;

"when you want to send soldiers to a battlefield you better be damn sure about what you want them to do, why they are there and whether it's worth the lives of your soldiers"

In EVERY combat operation soldiers die. Either on your side or the on the enemy. This is never a good thing. Are we too soft? I think war just changed over time. A small-scale war means less dead, so we expect to see only few guys returning in a box. The first gulf war was really a turning point. People started to think that the US was a mighty god who could defeat a powerfull enemy with very few losses.

In WW2 people were still thinking of WW1. So compared to that WW2 wasn't that bad. There were no thenches and stuff and they were winning terrain.

Of course the media has also improved and makes a tragedy of ever dead. This is wrong in my point of view, but we can't turn back the clock on freedom for the press (and I will be the last the say we should).

In Iraq it's very painfull because we have already won the war

(sort of). So that makes people think the dead shouldn't have been neccesary.

I disagree with the first part of your post. I think it's a sad thing if an Iraqi soldier dies. However; when it's a terrorist I keep it simple; kill em all.

[bn880 5]

In addition to the good responses:

Maybe it's an evolution of thought on part of society (even if most people are not aware of all losses). It is definately a step in the right direction to "whine" about people trying to and doing the dying.

I mean, if it's soft for you, go fight as an Iraqi soldier/guerilla... or go to some conflicts in Africa, that'll be fun and totally ignoring human life.

[m21man 0]

Quote[/b] ]As stated before, WW2 was more of a Crusade against an easily definable "evil".

Saddam was evil by almost anyone's standards, as were his sons.

Quote[/b] ]I mean, if it's soft for you, go fight as an Iraqi soldier/guerilla

Hey, I could use their tactics! I just have to load a semi with explosives and suicide bomb the UN building     .

   

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

Dont execute me but I agree. In the past war was a good mean to release tensions and to bring back modesty to humanity. Now WWII was of course an incredible deaster but I am convinced that regular wars are important for the equilibrium of societies. Sigmund Freudt called that stamp-collection, little agressions and anyonances sum up untill the day you just explode (even though the last tiny incident that causes the explosion might be ridiculously insignificant).

Also, if we, after WWII have too many generations wihtout the experience of war then we are more likely to underestimate the brutality. Consequnce => the further away we move from WWII the more likely it will be that we are causing another great war.

BTW: watch this, ever seen a tank break like this? wiesel tritt auf die Bremsen!

[m21man 0]

@Albert Schweizer - Strange, I actually agree with you .

[KJAM 0]

IMO, wars are a natural thing for humans to be doing, NOT a good thing, but one that is in our nature at the least, and agreeing with albert, it is a strange form of population control too

[miles teg 1]

Capt. Frostbite, who exactly do you classify as a terrorist?

An example of the abuse of this term was on a recent 60 Minutes show where they were in Iraq investigating an incident in which a child and several adults were killed in front of a Jordanian hospital by US soldiers as the truck there were in was shot up. The difference in the stories by troops vs. what the Iraqis said was amazing. Even some of the soldiers they interviewed sided with the Iraqi telling of the story because at least one of the soldiers knew the family of the slain boy whos elder brother and father were also killed. They found a missing son in the attack at a US Army hospital and took his mother to see him. This family had absolutely no reason to attack US soldiers as their family supporters of the Americans there and numerous witnesses confirmed that the actual attackers were in an another vehicle and that they just happened to be the closest vehicle to shoot at during the shooting frenzy.

Yet... the US military released a statement saying that this family whos members were killed were terrorist attackers who were thwarted.

So don't believe everything you hear on the news when they say that terrorists were killed.

In fact actually, Iraqis who specifically target US soldiers and who take care to minimize civilian casualties are NOT terrorists technically. If they are focusing their attacks on enemy soldiers then they are guerilla soldiers not terrorists.

However as for ACTUAL terrorists, yes I hope they kill more of them. Sadly however that's seldom the case. Usually its some innocent person that ends up getting killed or imprisoned unjustly.

Chris G.

aka-Miles Teg<GD>

[denoir 0]

Not to say that long term peace is an impossibility. You can take my country as an example. Sweden has had peace for about 200 years now. In the period of thousand years before that, the longest we had peace was about five years in a row.

The prequisites for peace are as I see it:

1) A homogenous population

2) No territorial disputes

3) No imperialistic/expansionist ambitions

4) Little or no nationalism.

As we're going to a more homogenous global society where business is multinational and people move freely across borders, I think that the world is slowly getting there too. At least the western world, but the rest don't really have a choice.

[EiZei 0]

Quote[/b] ]As stated before, WW2 was more of a Crusade against an easily definable "evil".

Saddam was evil by almost anyone's standards, as were his sons.

Last time I checked human rights were not the stated reason for this war. Until the ones that were stated started to crumble away that is.

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

you forgot one thing denoir. International involvement.

Some countries are involved in basically any dispute (due to size, industries, location) and others will never be (due to policitcal and strategical insignificance).

[denoir 0]

Actually, I was thinking about that and with the right attitude you can still avoid it. Look at Sweden in WW2. We weren't invaded by Germany in exchange for free passage for German troops and continued supply of iron-ore.

Now, one can debate if avoiding war at any cost is the right thing to do or not, but what I'm saying that it's possible, if that is your priority.

Now for that all to work, it assumes that you have rational people in charge everywhere, which you don't. If you have a mad neighbouring country, they might invade you without any good reasons. That's however more rare.

[m21man 0]

Quote[/b] ]Last time I checked human rights were not the stated reason for this war. Until the ones that were stated started to crumble away that is.  

You kidding? Bush certainly thought that it was a crusade .

Quote[/b] ]The prequisites for peace are as I see it:

1) A homogenous population

2) No territorial disputes

3) No imperialistic/expansionist ambitions

4) Little or no nationalism.

See? We's jes tryin to keep teh world "homogenous"     .

[denoir 0]

See? We's jes tryin to keep teh world "homogenous"     .

Yes if everybody would embrace American culture, tradition and organization of society, the world would be a much more stable place. Stability is however not the only important thing in the world.

If we all wanted to be equal, then we should have embraced communism.

[Winters 1]

Damn, i am late for the party, again.

Looks like all the good points have been made already, i will just add that maybe one day we can live in a "Star Trek" like world that mankind is no longer obsessed with material things and that we work together to better ourselves as a whole (ok so i borrowed that from First Contact, shoot me it still make sense anyway    )

[ralphwiggum 6]

There is a famous quote, might even be used in the OFP death sequences, and it is something like this:

Quote[/b] ]A single Death is a tragedy. A million Death is just a statistic.

(just checked, it is from Stalin)

MIGHT?!? It is used! Do you even play OFP!

The prequisites for peace are as I see it:

1) A homogenous population

actually, i'd like to reconsider that point. having a homogenous population also makes it impossible/hard for that popoulation to understand outside of their groups.

another thing i might throw in is that people became expecting less casualty since we now have those reasonably precise and deadly weapons. With technology available, people want to beleive that a missile fired hundreds of miles away still can hit enemy without incurring loss on our side. of course it goes the other way too, and people tend to forget that.