Why aren't there more protests like the ones during the Vietnam era?

[freakazoid]

Yeah, pretty much what the title says. It seems to me that there where a lot of large protests, and a lot of them student lead leftist leaning. Why don't we see that now? What is different between now and then that we don't see them like that? What can we do to change this? Or are they happening and I'm just an idiot for not knowing about them?

:confused:

[Demogorgon]

There is no draft now. That takes the urgency of the matter out of it for a lot of people.

[Post-Something]

Plus they don't really work.

[Dr Mindbender]

Yeah, pretty much what the title says. It seems to me that there where a lot of large protests, and a lot of them student lead leftist leaning. Why don't we see that now? What is different between now and then that we don't see them like that? What can we do to change this? Or are they happening and I'm just an idiot for not knowing about them?

:confused:

there ARE big protests happening, espesh whenever the G8 or IMF meet up. I think what we're seeing is a transition of the wooly naivety of lets 'give the status quo a chance' and only kick a stink whenever the establishment does something very naughty like start a war.

The fact that you're not hearing about these demos only confirms that the capitalist media has become more adept at fulfilling its role, ie downplaying or ignoring events that could potentially threaten its own interests and status. This stems largely from the fact that this generation of protestor is now savvy to the fact that the ideaology is the problem and root cause of imperialist aggression.

[Bud Struggle]

There is no draft now. That takes the urgency of the matter out of it for a lot of people.

Exactly. People protested the Vietnam war because THEY didn't want to go. Nobedy really cared one way or another about the war itself. People don't protest Iraq because it really doesn't effect many people (except for the Iraqis of course.)

[Killfacer]

Actually TomK, people in the UK went on protests and we had no draft. Assuming that the UK isnt naturally more willing to protest than the US (i always thought we were pretty miled mannered) then people did not just protest for selfish reasons.

[Ultra-Violence]

The fact that you're not hearing about these demos only confirms that the capitalist media has become more adept at fulfilling its role, ie downplaying or ignoring events that could potentially threaten its own interests and status. This stems largely from the fact that this generation of protestor is now savvy to the fact that the ideaology is the problem and root cause of imperialist aggression
^^^^^^^^^^^
THIS! and this is what scares me the most really i dont want any timothy mcavays

And there are lots of cuases here not jus the stated above but like how people already mentioned the draft is gone so thats another factor another is the presidential election people are angry hence the record amount of voter turnout but! they believe change will come threw the ballot lots of people feel Obama will "change" America will he? i dunno and i personaly dont think much is goana change but how they run the empire so i mean thier lots of reasons you ust cant pin point em

[gla22]

There is no draft now. That takes the urgency of the matter out of it for a lot of people.

there should be more protest.

[Bud Struggle]

The fact that you're not hearing about these demos only confirms that the capitalist media has become more adept at fulfilling its role, ie downplaying or ignoring events that could potentially threaten its own interests and status. This stems largely from the fact that this generation of protestor is now savvy to the fact that the ideaology is the problem and root cause of imperialist aggression


A bit of a conspiracy theory thinking that the media won't cover protests because they are in league with the government, don't you think?

More likely the protests are so small that they don't register on index of newsworthy items. I'm against the war myself--and surely I would have heard of such goings on as protests or strikes.

The protests ain't out there--or at least not in any worthwhile force.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

People might also find it harder to sympathize with Saddam Hussein and the Ba'athist Party than they did with the Communists who had been pushing for democratic reforms and national self-determination. That is not to say that the Iraq war is justified or even that these people believe so, but it may have been another factor which, like the draft, added to the urgency of the anti-war effort.

[Dean]

Exactly. People protested the Vietnam war because THEY didn't want to go. Nobedy really cared one way or another about the war itself. People don't protest Iraq because it really doesn't effect many people (except for the Iraqis of course.)

I disagree. Very many people care, even today, but they find it impossible to condemn the very body to which they have pledged their undying support. So to discuss the war in an honest light would be like self-degredation for the people. I think the days when people really disassociated from the government in this nation have passed, and with that any serious criticism has also gone. It's very easy to condemn the government but only in the context that the republicans or democrats are to blame. When they agree, so do the american people. In a perverse way, the parties really do stand for what the people want - what people fail to see is that they want things only because they have been raised to follow as lamb to the slaughter.

[TC]

The premise of this thread is false, there are lots of protests now, in fact iraq war protests were bigger than vietnam war protests.

[ManyAntsDefeatSpiders]

The premise of this thread is false, there are lots of protests now, in fact iraq war protests were bigger than vietnam war protests.

Exactly what I was going to say.

The anti-Iraq war matches were some of the biggest in history.

And don't forget, Vietnam lasted a hell of a lot longer than Iraq - Iraq isn't over yet.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Agreed. Protests against Iraq have been larger. The media just learned its lesson. ;)

[RGacky3]

The premise of this thread is false, there are lots of protests now, in fact iraq war protests were bigger than vietnam war protests.


Thats true, not only that, they started before the war was even started, it took a while for the vietnam protests to start.


A bit of a conspiracy theory thinking that the media won't cover protests because they are in league with the government, don't you think?

Is that so crazy? Considering this nations past?

Also its not a matter of them being in league with the government its the whole atmosphere of the media situation, they are owned by conglomorates, they are fed information a lot by the government, and they work with certain presumptions (i.e. we are good, they are bad.) Its not a matter of being in luegue, its a matter of the way the corporate national media works.

For example, take the story of Hugo Chavez buying 100,000 rifles, a couple planes and some other weapons, (this happend a while ago but the story stuck in my mind as a great example), 100,000 rifles is really not a big deal in the scheme of things, but then the media as a whole freaked out, "Why is he buying these weapons." "He's not going to get invaded what are his plans?" "Is Venezuela becoming militarized." "Venezuela is making a strategic move." "why does Venezuela need those weapons?"

Now if you look at that story in the big scheme of things is rediculous, considering how much america spends on the military, but no one asks those questions, Whos going to invade America? Why does America need all those weapons? What is America going to do?

Now do I think that that story came out because of some conspiricy involving the government? Probably not, however, the story is written on the premis that, Hugo Chavez is the bad guy, America is not, saying Hugo Chavez is bad is ok, no one will challenge that, his militarization can be attacked without impunity, now if someone attacks American militarization, the person that attacks it in the mainstream media has a lot to worry about, and he better have a lot of evidence, and be willing to take a lot of flack, not only that the media outlet has to worry about it as well, and THAT is bad for business.

[Ele'ill]

I didn't bother reading through most of the posts here but there are large demonstrations still happening. Don't look to the news organizations to bring it to you live. Seattle in 99 was big, the demos in canada were huge (rumor has it that they were bigger than seattle) Greece is constantly in stages of various worker sit-ins, walk-outs and strikes. There are still people demonstrating against the IMF/WB and WTO as well as the G8 meetings etc ..

[freakazoid]

The premise of this thread is false, there are lots of protests now, in fact iraq war protests were bigger than vietnam war protests.


Exactly what I was going to say.

The anti-Iraq war matches were some of the biggest in history.

Really? It seems to me that protests back then were pretty large, and also happened quite frequently. And I don't mean just anti-Vietnam war protests. Are the anti-Iraq war protests still leftist leaning?


And don't forget, Vietnam lasted a hell of a lot longer than Iraq - Iraq isn't over yet.


I didn't bother reading through most of the posts here but there are large demonstrations still happening. Don't look to the news organizations to bring it to you live. Seattle in 99 was big, the demos in canada were huge (rumor has it that they were bigger than seattle) Greece is constantly in stages of various worker sit-ins, walk-outs and strikes. There are still people demonstrating against the IMF/WB and WTO as well as the G8 meetings etc ..

I know about the Seattle protest and the G8, haven't heard about the big ones in Canada. I also remember seeing some videos on Molotovs being thrown in Greece :). But I'm mostly focusing on the US and our what looks like a lack of many large scale protests.

[Dean]

A bit of a conspiracy theory thinking that the media won't cover protests because they are in league with the government, don't you think?

More likely the protests are so small that they don't register on index of newsworthy items. I'm against the war myself--and surely I would have heard of such goings on as protests or strikes.

The protests ain't out there--or at least not in any worthwhile force.

The "conspiracy theory" label is nothing more than a stigma that our society has been trained to attach to any subversive criticisms of our governing bodies. The protests are definitely big, and worthy of media attention.

[Bud Struggle]

The "conspiracy theory" label is nothing more than a stigma that our society has been trained to attach to any subversive criticisms of our governing bodies. The protests are definitely big, and worthy of media attention.

I'm somewhat media savvy but besides for Cindy Sheehan and her crowd I don't think I've heard anything about them. I would think the anti-Bush media would be all over stuff like that.

I'm not disagreeing with you--I just haven't seen anything about them.

[Robert]

Watch MSNBC, owned by General Electric, for one day before you tell me with a straight face that a corporate controlled U.S. media is ignoring anti-war news. Then go look at the balance sheet of G.E.

[Dean]

I'm somewhat media savvy but besides for Cindy Sheehan and her crowd I don't think I've heard anything about them. I would think the anti-Bush media would be all over stuff like that.

I'm not disagreeing with you--I just haven't seen anything about them.

The media only became anti-Bush when the approval ratings really hit rock bottom. Even then, they won't speak about the civilian cost of our imperialism in Iraq and Afghanistan, and outright support him when it comes to the anti-Chavez / Iran vitriol. I've noticed that in the last year or so, Bush had very little presence in the media, thereby dulling the negativity directed towards him in the media (this has changed in the last few months). Regardless, the U.S. media is distinctly in favor of U.S. and allies policies abroad, and this is abundantly clear when we consider the biased reporting on Iran, Iraq, Israel, Venezuela, Cuba, etc.. This also has a clear effect on the reporting on protests at home. I've been to some huge anti-war protests in washington, where we marched to the capitol, and the media made little note of it. No mention of the pro-immigrant rallies I've gone to in the major media.

[RGacky3]

Watch MSNBC, owned by General Electric, for one day before you tell me with a straight face that a corporate controlled U.S. media is ignoring anti-war news. Then go look at the balance sheet of G.E.

Interestingly the story I was talking about, I read at MSNBC.com

[Robert]

Watch it yourself.

[RGacky3]

Yeah, I did, did you read my post about that story? the Venezuelan one?

[Robert]

No. I'll read it if you want me to, but I have a hard time hearing any suggestion that MSNBC is in the tank for the Bush administration's wars if that's what you're arguing.

[RGacky3]

yeah read it :P.

[High Voltage]

A bit of a conspiracy theory thinking that the media won't cover protests because they are in league with the government, don't you think?

More likely the protests are so small that they don't register on index of newsworthy items. I'm against the war myself--and surely I would have heard of such goings on as protests or strikes.

The protests ain't out there--or at least not in any worthwhile force.

The media has learned from Vietnam and is not putting up as much graphic news material (such as photos of bodies). So really in a way they are in league with the government by denying the shocking truth of war to everyone. So any major protests are blocked by lack of recruitment because nobody hears about anything worth standing up.

[Bud Struggle]

The media has learned from Vietnam and is not putting up as much graphic news material (such as photos of bodies). So really in a way they are in league with the government by denying the shocking truth of war to everyone. So any major protests are blocked by lack of recruitment because nobody hears about anything worth standing up.

I'm not sure if that's quite true. I remember during the Vietnam war the coverage was brutal, but then again 50,000 Americans died and hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese. In Iraq, there have *only* been 3000 Americans killed in the entire war, so there isn't that kind of carnage.

On the other hand the Iraqis are slaughtering each other by the hundreds and that isn't reported grafficly. But then again, they ARE Iraqis--and their deaths aren't that much interest to Americans.

A qualifier: I don't get cable, so I don't see what's on the cable news channels, so I may be a bit off.

[Mariner's Revenge]

I cannot post links as of yet but here are some wiki readings:

http: //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protests_against_the_2003_Iraq_war

http: //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protests_against_the_Vietnam_War#Protests_timeline


Whether the premise of the topic is right or not, you have to ask the question of how does this affect people's personal lives? More or less media coverage? A friend or relative being sent off to war? More social opposition?

[Dr Mindbender]

A bit of a conspiracy theory thinking that the media won't cover protests because they are in league with the government, don't you think?

More likely the protests are so small that they don't register on index of newsworthy items. I'm against the war myself--and surely I would have heard of such goings on as protests or strikes.

The protests ain't out there--or at least not in any worthwhile force.

Its not a conspiracy at all, I have witnessed it. At the big one on 28th Feb 2003 the BBC said 1 million marched through London. The real figure was double that.

I have taken part in various anti war demos througout the UK and London especially, upon my return while listening to the news it was common for them to divide the headcount by a factor of x10 so you tell me.

Either someone is trying to cover things up or its a shambolic case of lazy journalism.

[RGacky3]

I'm not sure if that's quite true. I remember during the Vietnam war the coverage was brutal, but then again 50,000 Americans died and hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese. In Iraq, there have *only* been 3000 Americans killed in the entire war, so there isn't that kind of carnage.

Which makes it amazing that there is so much dissent and protest, what that means is that the protest is more over principle, rather than discust of loosing Americans.

[Svante]

The premise of this thread is false, there are lots of protests now, in fact iraq war protests were bigger than vietnam war protests.

i dont see protests anywere.nobody protest war i n Irak.

[Svante]

I'm not sure if that's quite true. I remember during the Vietnam war the coverage was brutal, but then again 50,000 Americans died and hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese. In Iraq, there have *only* been 3000 Americans killed in the entire war, so there isn't that kind of carnage.

On the other hand the Iraqis are slaughtering each other by the hundreds and that isn't reported grafficly. But then again, they ARE Iraqis--and their deaths aren't that much interest to Americans.

A qualifier: I don't get cable, so I don't see what's on the cable news channels, so I may be a bit off.

i dont see coverage o n TV. CTV or TV5 dont cover the war i n Irak.perhaps becuase Steve harper,Bush lapdog,he support the war.

[NoArch]

The media has learned from Vietnam and is not putting up as much graphic news material (such as photos of bodies). So really in a way they are in league with the government by denying the shocking truth of war to everyone. So any major protests are blocked by lack of recruitment because nobody hears about anything worth standing up.
I agree with this, also that the draft for Vietnam forced people out of their seats.

[High Voltage]

Its not a conspiracy at all, I have witnessed it. At the big one on 28th Feb 2003 the BBC said 1 million marched through London. The real figure was double that.

I have taken part in various anti war demos througout the UK and London especially, upon my return while listening to the news it was common for them to divide the headcount by a factor of x10 so you tell me.

Either someone is trying to cover things up or its a shambolic case of lazy journalism.

That dividing the headcount at protests reminds me of the scene in Farenheight 451 where the old man is talking to Guy about how the media says 1 million troops instead of 10 million troops to make the upcoming war seem "nicer". I think it is one of those statistic modifiers to not cover up but make the movement look more insignificant like the protests were some not-so-silent minority.

[graffic]

If you think the media fails to cover protests due to government interests and capitalist aspirations you might as well give up now.

[Baconator]

Yeah, pretty much what the title says. It seems to me that there where a lot of large protests, and a lot of them student lead leftist leaning. Why don't we see that now? What is different between now and then that we don't see them like that? What can we do to change this? Or are they happening and I'm just an idiot for not knowing about them?

:confused:

Protests won't to much good. What you can do to change things? Start discrediting the institution of the state.:D

[Dr Mindbender]

If you think the media fails to cover protests due to government interests and capitalist aspirations you might as well give up now.
do you care to substantiate that remark or can we disregard it as another ten a penny OI strawman?

[Dean]

I'm not sure if that's quite true. I remember during the Vietnam war the coverage was brutal, but then again 50,000 Americans died and hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese. In Iraq, there have *only* been 3000 Americans killed in the entire war, so there isn't that kind of carnage.

On the other hand the Iraqis are slaughtering each other by the hundreds and that isn't reported grafficly. But then again, they ARE Iraqis--and their deaths aren't that much interest to Americans.

A qualifier: I don't get cable, so I don't see what's on the cable news channels, so I may be a bit off.

The media actively refuses to cover Iraqi death toll figures. The civilian casualties from Shock and Awe alone is considered to be in the tens of thousands (really atrocious for an opening bombing campaign) and the deaths since from suicide bombings, starvation and medical crises, which should be attributed at least in part (sometimes directly) to the U.S. choice to use military force in Iraq, measure from 80,000 to 600,000 (depending on who you ask).

These are rough estimates I have been throwing around since I saw them last year, so they are probably off by now. They do make it clear how horrendous the war is to the civilian population, and it is certainly very offensive that the U.S. media consistently reports the casualties from suicide bombings while brushing off or outright ignoring the deaths caused directly by U.S. military action, starvation, etc.. The media is clearly trying to portray the deaths in the region as the fault of native barbarism as opposed to the effects of a violent, destabilizing military occupation.

[Bud Struggle]

The media is clearly trying to portray the deaths in the region as the fault of native barbarism as opposed to the effects of a violent, destabilizing military occupation.

Well it's both. The invasion did destabilize Iraq, it did free it from a rather nasty tyrant--and to be honest, nobody cared. The Iraqis were better off under Saddam--who would have thunk it? On the other hand the Iraqis are being particularly brutal to one another. Americans aren't killing Iraqis--they are killing each other. If someone came and destabilized the American government--Americans wouldn't be murdering each other.

Iraqis have to take a good chunk of the blame for their actions.

Now as to the civilian deaths--the media doesn't and won't report that, because the American people just aren't interested. For the most part it is just crasy Moslems killing each other. How many Americans do you think really understand the different Moslem factions and why they are murdering each other?

[Mariner's Revenge]

Well it's both. The invasion did destabilize Iraq, it did free it from a rather nasty tyrant--and to be honest, nobody cared. The Iraqis were better off under Saddam--who would have thunk it? On the other hand the Iraqis are being particularly brutal to one another. Americans aren't killing Iraqis--they are killing each other. If someone came and destabilized the American government--Americans wouldn't be murdering each other.

Iraqis have to take a good chunk of the blame for their actions.
Uh huh. You should really start thinking about how the social structure of the United States and Iraq differ and how that would determine why Iraqis are killing each other and Americans wouldn't.

The United States works by assimilation. If you are not part of the main social culture you are oppressed. Iraq does not have that dominate culture that the United States has so expecting them to have a stable democracy in the same sense as the United States is idealistic and foolish.

Think of it this way. Imagine if an Imperialistic China came over to Europe in 1900 and made a new state consisting of half of England, half of Germany, and half of France. Imagine how effective democracy would work in that situation.

Now, think of who made the current state of Iraq.


I do not want to say Western powers are 100% at fault for this. We would be playing with Chaos theory, something I hate doing. But we need to remember this if peace or democracy will ever happen in Iraq and many Middle Eastern and African countries. And please don't pull off the elitist "Americans wouldn't be fighting each other". Those two countries live in completely different situations and expecting them to have the same outcome is quite naive.

[Dean]

Well it's both. The invasion did destabilize Iraq, it did free it from a rather nasty tyrant--and to be honest, nobody cared. The Iraqis were better off under Saddam--who would have thunk it? On the other hand the Iraqis are being particularly brutal to one another. Americans aren't killing Iraqis--they are killing each other. If someone came and destabilized the American government--Americans wouldn't be murdering each other.

Iraqis have to take a good chunk of the blame for their actions.

Now as to the civilian deaths--the media doesn't and won't report that, because the American people just aren't interested. For the most part it is just crasy Moslems killing each other. How many Americans do you think really understand the different Moslem factions and why they are murdering each other?

They are murdering each other because of a series of imperial aggressions which more or less started after the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire. The empire was known to be one of the most accepting and diverse nations at the time, and ever since the Europeans gained power over the region and split it up on erroneous lines, people have been at each other throats because a racial class system was created in different forms and to differing degrees. For instance, the Kurds have a sizeable population in Turkey and Iraq, but have no real power due to the partition plans. So they have been persecuted, which is a logical outcome when any power is granted to one people over another. Its hard to blame them on the lines of their culture, because they are merely actors in history.

Naturally, the Kurds, Sunnis and Shia fight for their rights. If you want to find someone to blame, you can blame the europeans much like you can blame world powers for the arming and aggravation of the African continent. But its not just about blaming someone, its about formign a foreign policy that doesn't create this kind of strife.

And, I don't think people aren't interested in the deaths of civilians. The media simply wants to portray it as such, because they know that a nationalist stance is good for their profiteering, especially when you can frame news as if it is the american people who have to be scared, and not others afraid of the U.S.. When peopel are frightened, they tune in, and ratings go up, nevermind how misleading or irrelevent the news ultimately is.

[Mariner's Revenge]

And, I don't think people aren't interested in the deaths of civilians. The media simply wants to portray it as such, because they know that a nationalist stance is good for their profiteering, especially when you can frame news as if it is the american people who have to be scared, and not others afraid of the U.S.. When peopel are frightened, they tune in, and ratings go up, nevermind how misleading or irrelevent the news ultimately is.
Yep, its all about the money.

[Bud Struggle]

Think of it this way. Imagine if an Imperialistic China came over to Europe in 1900 and made a new state consisting of half of England, half of Germany, and half of France. Imagine how effective democracy would work in that situation.

Now, think of who made the current state of Iraq.

Actually that's the way Europe has been behaving for the past 2000 years. How many times has France atacked Germany? How many times has Germany conquored France. Or Russia taken over Poland? Europe's been a bloody place for a long time--just a couple of years ago the Serbs did their ethnic clensing.

But, in the end Iraq was a powder keg and the US set it off. In the end though, everyone's responsible for their own actions--and the Iraqis are different peoples, maybe a division of the place might just be the best thing.

I really don't want to be caught in the position of defending the War in Iraq--which I do not now nor never have agreed with. My only interest there is for the US to get out with the fewest casualties on all sides.