Would the war hawks still be as supportive if the death rate was that of WWII?

I’m curious as to why you picked those battles with those numbers but my answer is yes, the hawks will still be supportive. That’s only my opinion, unless the numbers reach or exceed the number of deaths in Iraq ( 4000+) ?, obviously a more recent war, in which case there might be some shift in their positions but doubtful if that will be enough to end all engagements there.

@mazingerz88 I’m curious as to why you picked those battles with those numbers… Because I could not do them all I was getting tired and the death rate would have been in the 10s of 1,000s.

unless the numbers reach or exceed the number of deaths in Iraq ( 4000+) The numbers in Iraq and Aghanistan happened over many years, the number of these battle were racked up in less than a week. A couple of days with Tarawa not years.

@Hypocrisy_Central Indeed. The Korean War alone was what, 53,000+ and the Vietnam War, 58,000+ Those were staggering! I remember thinking those hawks, especially the chicken ones were thinking those numbers who died in Iraq was small compared to Korea and Vietnam so they deem it more palatable to this country. Not to me.

On the first day of the Battle of the Somme in 1916 the British Army suffered 60,000 casualties but support for the war did not falter. It is a matter of national pride, you can’t be seen to have lost even if you forget why you are fighting.

Nowadays, great casualties give the public pause, which is why when the numbers get up there, the hawks start to question things.

They don’t care about your kids getting killed. They start to care when they can’t get their kids out of the draft.

Remember, it is not the war hawks or their children that go to war. It is the middle class that bears the brunt of the death and destruction because the military is their only change to establish themselves. Notice that the war hawks profit in these contrived wars and also use the opportunity to move production off shore where labor costs less.

I think that we have more war criminals now living in the U.S. than ever existed in Nazi Germany and they all profit from the continual state of war.

“I think that we have more war criminals now living in the U.S. than ever existed in Nazi Germany and they all profit from the continual state of war.”

AMEN.

@johnpowell This question lead me to look at some other aspects of the occupations in Iraq and Afghanistan. A major player in these military farces is Erik Prince formerly of Blackwater now a company called X. He is a true Christian Crusader and in the Crusader tradition, he’s responsible for the deaths of hundreds, possibly thousands of Iraqi civilians and who knows how many in other places. I truly believe that there is no need to ever keep or train a mercenary force. If the army can’t do the job then it probably shouldn’t be done.

The war hawks give a shit about the death rate only insofar as it negatively influences public opinion and even then only to the extent that public opinion would interfere with their racket.

It’s called Xe

@obvek Xe right. I notice that the war hawks have no personal interest in the wars except for the profit or power they gain. Their children are never involved and their investment portfolio increases in value. It really doesn’t matter how many people from this or the invaded country die. It is really disgusting and unAmerican.