NationStates Jolt Archive

In your opinion, do you think the Iraqi War will lead to protests on the homefront like the ones seen during the Vietnam War?

I'm going with a no, for several reasons


There is no draft in place
American society is not as volitile as it was 40 years ago
Casualties aren't even comparable
Media coverage isnt quite as in-depth as it was


However it wouldnt shock me if this happened.

In your opinion, do you think the Iraqi War will lead to protests on the homefront like the ones seen during the Vietnam War?

I'm going with a no, for several reasons


There is no draft in place
American society is not as volitile as it was 40 years ago
Casualties aren't even comparable
Media coverage isnt quite as in-depth as it was


If it has not already then I most likely won't.

In your opinion, do you think the Iraqi War will lead to protests on the homefront like the ones seen during the Vietnam War?

I'm going with a no, for several reasons


There is no draft in place
American society is not as volitile as it was 40 years ago
Casualties aren't even comparable
Media coverage isnt quite as in-depth as it was


As a side note, each of those notes that you've made could divide into a discussion/debate of it's own, into four seperate threads. There're a lot of different things we could discuss, about the presidency, the media, and society in general.

Personally, I don't think it'll get to that point with Iraq; however, if Iran were to become a target, that's a whole different story (for yet another thread ;)).

In your opinion, do you think the Iraqi War will lead to protests on the homefront like the ones seen during the Vietnam War?

I'm going with a no, for several reasons


There is no draft in place
American society is not as volitile as it was 40 years ago
Casualties aren't even comparable
Media coverage isnt quite as in-depth as it was

With violence levels dropping, no.

Most of the big Vietnam protests occurred after the war seemed lost following the Tet Offesnive. The last year has seen an improvement in Iraq which never occurred during the Vietnam War.

In your opinion, do you think the Iraqi War will lead to protests on the homefront like the ones seen during the Vietnam War?

I'm going with a no, for several reasons


There is no draft in place
American society is not as volitile as it was 40 years ago
Casualties aren't even comparable
Media coverage isnt quite as in-depth as it was

actually...
American Society is more up to speed on government movements now than then. add to the internet that can keep loved ones in better contact makes each loss closer to home than during Vietnam.
Also, the Media coverage is more in-depth now than back then.

I'm also gonna say no because people learned to work with the goverment to change policies (like the Democrats gaining control during the mid term election.) and we have another Presidental Election next year. so it's a wait and see at this point.

EDIT: BTW... what does an "Iraqi Terrorist Flag" look like?

Not pyschadelic enough, man. Chill bro, have a pill.

Other than that, I'm guessing that the draft during the Vietnam War contribute greatly to the cause of the demonstrations.

In your opinion, do you think the Iraqi War will lead to protests on the homefront like the ones seen during the Vietnam War?


A bit late isn't it?

With violence levels dropping, no.

Most of the big Vietnam protests occurred after the war seemed lost following the Tet Offesnive. The last year has seen an improvement in Iraq which never occurred during the Vietnam War.

I could not agree more.

Not to mention that the media sensationalized the Tet Offensive (which was militarily disastrous for the Viet Cong), whereas today's media can't show dead US soldiers due to FCC guidelines. All the same, I think the quality of the news we get these days is quite a step up.

We had about 3 million in London just as it was starting. I'd say that's pretty Vietnam-esque.

Everyone assumes the drop in violence means the insurgents are chilling out or giving up.

Remember boys and girls, it was all nice and peachy before the Tet Offensive too.

And if Cheney had his way, Blackwater would be guarding college campuses to the point where Kent State would look like a homeowner's accident in comparison.

Everyone assumes the drop in violence means the insurgents are chilling out or giving up.

Actually...it is because our troops are stopping them in their tracks, the locals are turning over others as well and intelligence has been stepped up to stop most attacks from occuring.

Remember boys and girls, it was all nice and peachy before the Tet Offensive too.

Actually I disagree. It was not all peachy before Tet either.

Everyone assumes the drop in violence means the insurgents are chilling out or giving up.
Quite a lot of it is actually due to them losing much to fight for. The Saddamist groups have quit the scene because Saddam Hussein is now quite dead, for example.

No. They would've happened by now.

Everyone assumes the drop in violence means the insurgents are chilling out or giving up.

Remember boys and girls, it was all nice and peachy before the Tet Offensive too.

And if Cheney had his way, Blackwater would be guarding college campuses to the point where Kent State would look like a homeowner's accident in comparison.

He actually does bring up an important point. Just because violence levels are dropping now doesn't mean they will continue to stay low, and there are a thousand ways that this peace could be broken, but this said, as Vietnam style protests didn't occur earlier when things were going really downhill, I doubt they will if things go downhill again. More likely, you'll just have the kind of impending acceptance of doom that's become common in our time, as people wallow around all depressed and don't actually do anything except maybe cast votes against those they blame. You might have mass tax evasion though, as people are starting to really hate government.

No. They would've happened by now.
... it DID HAPPEN. Christ, people. London protests, 3 million there, it was great.

There are a long list of reasons why there won't be anything on that scale these days.

The OP is right. There is no draft. People signed up for this, and a bunch of innocent 18-year-olds who wanted nothing to do with the war...well, still having nothing to do with the war.

About 53,000 people died in the Vietnam conflict from the U.S. alone. In order to reach 53,000 dead in Iraq, at the current rate over the last four years, we'd have to be there until about 2056, by which some Iraqi veterans will have died of old age or senility.

There is nothing to compare to the Civil Rights movement. Sure, there's the gay rights movement, but gay lynchings are much fewer and farther between, and those who praise them are universally regarded as assholes. The biggest anti-gay agitators we have are televangelists and Fred Phelps, and everyone hates Phelps.

The concept of "free love" is passe, and teenagers these days are far less sexually frustrated, probably due to the advancement of online pornography. That and the fact that the free love movement already happened.

Back in those days, people gave a shit. Nowadays, people are nowhere near as charged up about things as they used to be. Blame it on any number of things - the internet, cable TV, or the fact that grown-ups have to work longer hours and kids have a lot more pressure put on them by schools. Whatever it is, far fewer people give a shit.

Also, as far as a justification for the war and for being vigilant toward the insurgency in Iraq, 9/11 makes a far greater justification than, say, JFK's assassination, which was the tragedy of the 1960s. Killing the President is tragic, it's unfair, and it's hell on the people - but it's no justification for war.

It also seems like something horrible is going on in the U.S. every other week and getting exposure thought to be unimaginable before CNN, YouTube, and instant gratification. It's hard to stay worked up over Iraq when some kid in Nebraska blows away eight shoppers or when some whack job in Colorado murders a half-dozen churchgoers. Even the Amish aren't safe anymore. And these things are played and played to death. So yes, it's hard to focus on Iraq when everyone's wondering if Drew Peterson really killed his fourth wife.

Oh yes, and there's one more big difference - drugs. Weed was a nice, mellowing drug used socially that epitomized the peace movement. Today? The drug of choice is meth, and there's no way in hell meth's going to be associated with any peace movement.

... it DID HAPPEN. Christ, people. London protests, 3 million there, it was great.

That was London and that really was not a Vietnam-esque protest. What I think the OP is referring to is mass protests such as more than 1 big one going on at the sametime like there was back in Vietnam. You really are not seeing it in Britain nor in the United States nor even in France.

That was London and that really was not a Vietnam-esque protest.
1) So what if it was in London?

2) Yes, yes it was. Lots of chanting and such. Good times.
What I think the OP is referring to is mass protests such as more than 1 big one going on at the sametime like there was back in Vietnam.
The UK isn't actually large enough to have more than one really large-scale demo going on at one time, people come to London, because you're never more than a couple of hours away by train.
You really are not seeing it in Britain nor in the United States nor even in France.
1) Britain isn't big enough
2) In the US, only middle-aged women go out to protest, mainly
3) France isn't involved in the fighting, so why would they bother?, they've got much better things to protest about.

Not unless they attempt to institute a draft. It wasn't so much the Vietnam war itself as it was the draft that crystallized public opposition to the war; the US was winning the Vietnam war, but it was winning it at a catastrophic cost. Hundreds of thousands of young men were forced to fight a war that they literally had no say in (if you recall, the voting age was not lowered to 18 nationwide until 1971). Plus, the world situation is different; there really isn't the same kind of political or cultural turmoil today that there was back in the 1960's, not by a long shot.

Lastly, of course, there's the scale. The US only has 150,000 give or take soldiers deployed in Iraq; during Vietnam, there was a peak of 553,000 deployed. Mind you, it's obviously true that our force commitment both during and after the commitment has been far too small (and reflects the inept arrogance of Donald Rumsfeld and his utter disregard for the actual commanders on the ground more than anything), but by and large there is nowhere near the same kind of commitment in Iraq as there was in Vietnam.

I hope not, 'cause then the Fascist Guard will start shooting up universities again.

what does an "Iraqi Terrorist Flag" look like?I dont know, good question.. maybe something like this
http://www.enchantedlearning.com/usa/flags/usa/donttread/big.GIF

I dont know, good question.. maybe something like this
http://www.enchantedlearning.com/usa/flags/usa/donttread/big.GIF

Oh brother :rolleyes:

There were a number of gigantic protests involving millions of people at the same time before the war even began. It's really already happening. The media didn't really cover it.

Oh brother :rolleyes:Talk to me Corny.. talk to me. :D

http://www.gadsden.info/i/tattoo/dont-tread.gif

Oh brother :rolleyes:

if he considers that to be an "Iraqi Terrorist Flag" then he is saying that Iraq has been targetting the US for a LOOOOONG time. :p

I'll be a troll and "...stick an Iraqi terrorist flag on the top a war memorial"

Oh yes, and there's one more big difference - drugs. Weed was a nice, mellowing drug used socially that epitomized the peace movement. Today? The drug of choice is meth, and there's no way in hell meth's going to be associated with any peace movement.

Quite Contrary. Weed is still by far the drug of choice. Meth just gets huge amounts of media coverage because everyone has already accepted that weed is essentially unharmful, while meth is a proven menace.

That was London and that really was not a Vietnam-esque protest. What I think the OP is referring to is mass protests such as more than 1 big one going on at the sametime like there was back in Vietnam. You really are not seeing it in Britain nor in the United States nor even in France.

yeah, we already had a number of the largest collective mass protests in human history over this thing. shit, we once got over 3,000 people out in wausau fucking wisconsin for one of the many many simultaneous mass demos that have been held. where the hell were you?

No, the war affects a very low number of people directly and thus most cannot get past the hassle of daily life to care enough. Plus the casualty rates are far lower and people are used to government waste to get too angry about the money spent.

yeah, we already had a number of the largest collective mass protests in human history over this thing. shit, we once got over 3,000 people out in wausau fucking wisconsin for one of the many many simultaneous mass demos that have been held. where the hell were you?

Depends on the year you are talking about. And ya know what? No one truly cares. Protests do not get covered much anymore because they are all the same. There is nothing different. There really is no mass movement as there was during Vietnam.

You didn't figure its a little late to wonder about this?

Quite Contrary. Weed is still by far the drug of choice. Meth just gets huge amounts of media coverage because everyone has already accepted that weed is essentially unharmful, while meth is a proven menace.

It would have to be iconic again, though. Sure, plenty of people smoke weed; we're not denying that. However, when people think of the drug of choice here and now, they think of crystal meth. In the 90s, it was...and to think I lived through the 90s...I guess the 80s and 90s were both crack. The 70s was LSD, the 60s was weed, and the 50s was boredom. And tobacco, I suppose.

Also, the controversy around weed centers around how the "War On Drugs" has essentially made it a substance non grata. It really is not any worse than alcohol, and if it were legalized, I'm sure something else would take its place as a "Gateway Drug."

A new drug would have to become the icon of today's generation - something iconic yet edgy. Meth won't cut it. Weed is passe. Crack is a bad idea. The psychedelics are too 1970s. The best I can do, to be honest, is Vicodin, and that's already associated with pro athletes and a grumpy TV doctor.

In your opinion, do you think the Iraqi War will lead to protests on the homefront like the ones seen during the Vietnam War?

I'm going with a no, for several reasons


There is no draft in place
American society is not as volitile as it was 40 years ago
Casualties aren't even comparable
Media coverage isnt quite as in-depth as it was


However it wouldnt shock me if this happened.

1 is straight up correct. 2 is iffy. 3 is again straight up. 4 is dead wrong.

You're batting 2.5 for 4....

With violence levels dropping, no.

Most of the big Vietnam protests occurred after the war seemed lost following the Tet Offesnive. The last year has seen an improvement in Iraq which never occurred during the Vietnam War.

Indeed. The big protests for Iraq have died down and (as per the OP) been forgotten....

A bit late isn't it?

Maybe, maybe not. As IDF pointed out, and as you would see if you cracked a history book, the protests against the war in SE Asia grew over time. If we went by the Vietnam model, we could expect the big protests in 2009... (early Vietnam protests started in 1963, making for a nice 40 year model- 1963/2003 first protests, 1969/2009 peak protests).

Actually, if you really want to push it, the first Vietnem protests by US citizens were in 1945, well before the Summer of Hate...

But in the following two months, the United States committed its first act of warfare against the Democratic Republic of Vietnam. At least 8 and possibly 12 U.S. troopships were diverted from their task of bringing American troops home from World War II and instead began transporting U.S.-armed French troops and Foreign Legionnaires from France to recolonize Vietnam. The enlisted crewmen of these ships, all members of the U.S. Merchant Marine, immediately began organized protests. On arriving in Vietnam, for example, the entire crews of four troopships met together in Saigon and drew up a resolution condemning the U.S. government for using American ships to transport troops "to subjugate the native population" of Vietnam.
http://chronicle.com/free/v47/i08/08b00701.htm


We had about 3 million in London just as it was starting. I'd say that's pretty Vietnam-esque.

Bigger actually.