I know about the bombing of which you speak. As far as the war, people didn't want loss of life and the hippy generation kept that going.
So you completely discount the fact that the population felt they shouldn't be there in the first place?
Of course people are going to object to an increasing body count if they believe they shouldn't be there in the first place.
Learn to read for God sakes. They had worse casualties and a harder war and they didn't bitch and gripe like all these sissies from the 70's on.
I do know how to read. I wish yu would learn how to comprehend.
The difference between WWII and Vietnam is that the public supported the war and believed in the cause.
Nobody complained when there were casualties in Gulf War I. The protests and anti-war positions come out strong when there is no proper justification for going to war. The population was all for it when they thought there were WMDs and that they were days away from seeing a mushroom cloud over their cities, ..but now that they know it was all a lie, increased casualties is like throwing good money after bad.
If you want to see increased support for the military, your governement needs to restore the military to it's place of honour, and not use it to feed corporate greed. HH6 said he doesn't want to see morale go down like it did after Nam, but the current path this administration is on pretty much guarantees it.
And can we return back on topic? remember the topic you started... religion and the presidential race?