On 6/12/21 11:39 PM, Robert Woodward wrote:
> Was this the Nobel Peace prize he was awarded about a year BEFORE the
> Arab Spring started?

Yeah. Those clairvoyant Norwegians!

--
Nous sommes dans une pot de chambre, et nous y serons emmerdés.
--- General Auguste-Alexandre Ducrot at Sedan, 1870.

On Tuesday, June 8, 2021 at 4:38:35 AM UTC-7, dama...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, June 7, 2021 at 10:38:00 PM UTC-4, The Horny Goat wrote:
> > On Mon, 7 Jun 2021 17:57:52 +1000, SolomonW <Solo...@citi.com> wrote:
> >
> > >> When 2003 came round Canada said no but had the very good excuse that
> > >> 80+% of Canadian ground combat troops were already in Afghanistan.
> > >
> > >I think that shows my point. But, fortunately, or unfortunately (depending
> > >on your view), modern democracies have a low tolerance to losses.
> > By losses I assume you mean casualties - which obviously in
> > Afghanistan were far lower than WW1 + WW2 though Canadian troops were
> > in Afghanistan longer than both world wars combined.
> I would dispute a broad statement that "modern democracies have a low tolerance for losses" simply because there is no proof of that. Name one war involving a democracy after WWII where the war came to an end because of casualties. Modern wars have been different, using technology rather than brute force to achieve goals. A side effect of that method has been fewer casualties. Now, that's not to say that a modern conflict involving peer powers would not be horrible casualty-wise. It certainly would. But I strongly suspect that the current democracies would accept casualties as opposed to the alternative of ending a war on unfavorable terms.
>
> Dean

As The Horny Goat said, what about Vietnam?