What happened to people?

Riddle101

If the Vietnam War has thought it's one thing, it's that the people's voice is a very powerful thing. As i'm sure a lot of you are aware, during the Vietnam War as the war continued public opinion dropped for the US Government and the morale of the US public was at a low. People grew angry and resentful of the government and what occurered as one of the finest times in history(In My Opinion) when people came together to protest the war. There were lot's of people backing the anti war movement, you had Muhammed Ali, Martin Luther King Jr, Army Veterns and more. The Anti War movement was a beautiful thing and it eventually led to the US's withdrawl from South Vietnam.

So what has happened to people today. Why don't we see movements like the one during the Vietnam War, i mean there are a lot of people unhappy with George Bush why don't people we see people doing something rather then sitting on their asses complaining about him. People have protested US intervention in the Middle East but it's not nearly as big as Vietnam. So what needs to be done? Maybe one of the reasons is because the Media is more conservative now. We have guys like Rupert Murdock who owns Sky News and Fox News the two biggest biased News Stations in the UK and US, who is pro government and will say what they think is right. Then we have young people. As a young guy(19) i find it annoying how young people my age don't have the heart anymore. Sure there are those out there that think the same way but young people today aren't with it. They're more into themselves and frankly couldn't care less about what's going on in the world.

I dunno, but people today have lost it. We could be a powerful force to be reckoned with yet nobody care. So what do we need to do to bring out the spirit in people?

brianthebard

There were US troops in Vietnam for 14 years, do you seriously think the anti war movement actually had an effect? I don't.

turgon

Riddle101 wrote: »

I dunno, but people today have lost it. We could be a powerful force to be reckoned with yet nobody care.

Are you talking about the Iraq War specifically or protest in general?

As regards Iraq, I would be very reluctant about in making such direct comparison with Vietnam. Firstly, some thing like 50,000 American soldiers dies in the Vietnam war - the Iraq War is no where near that. Secondly Americans got attacked in 9/11 for the first time in 100's of year so a lot would not view the Iraq war as as pointless as many felt Vietnam was.

Also, the US intervention in Vietnam was even more dodgy than in Iraq - they refused to hold democratic elections fearing the would-be-winner (so much for the Rights of Man etc etc). Through the whole course of it they viewed in mostly globally in terms of the Cold War whereas at the end of the day a lot of the Vietcong just wanted Independence from the West, which is totally fair enough in my opinion.

But I think the most important fact is the death toll of Americans. At the end of the day people are going to look out for themselves, and the death toll from Iraq isn't so monstrous that people are getting afraid, and also the lack of "the draft" means people wont be afraid of getting involved themselves - they will just stay out altogether and just ignore it.

As for protesting in general, mostly its just stupid eejits - like those "Shell to Sea" bigots, and I would be loathe to associate myself in any way with them.

OS119

the kind of large scale Vietman-era protests occured for two seperate, but 'playing off each other' groups of reasons.

1. during the Vietnam war the draft was in effect - this meant that those sent to Vietnam were not volunteers - cue the outraged mommy effect.

2. the US presence was vastly higher in Vietnam - some 500,000 at its peak - against the current US strength in Iraq of 140,000. added to the draft effect, this meant the average joe is much less likely to know someone sent to Iraq than his parents did with Vietmnam

3. US casualties in Iraq have not only been vastly lower in absolute terms, but vastly lower in 'your chances of being killed/injured during a 12 month tour' terms. it ain't as dangerous.

4. the average joe had no feeling of outrage that spurred the US involvement in Vietnam. regardless of the choice of target, that cannot be said in 2003.

that the 'feeling angry' reasons. now the 'doing something about it' reason

5. the 1960's and 70's were decades in which lots of poor people (those more affected by the draft than any other social class) had previous history of active protest - primarily over Civil Rights - hence they not only had a cause, but a 'to hand' memory of protest in support of that cause.

not everyone sees the world through your eyes, you focus on and celebrate the vietnam protests because you see "popular protest ends war - coz war is bad m'kay". what you should see is "people who are scared that they - or their children - will be sent to a very dangerous conflict about which they couldn't give a ****". nothing more than personal self-interest.

people haven't changed, they are faced with a different war, fought differently (expending things and not people - well, our people anyway) about which they feel differently. why should they possibly react in the same way?

you see all conflict as the same and by definition unjustifiable and bad, and react accordingly. not everyone - actually not many people - feel the same way.

Did not more people take to the streets than ever before to protest the start of this war?..its just that people have realised that the powers that be aren't listening any more..(not that they ever did really...its all in the economics)

Riddle101

brianthebard wrote: »

There were US troops in Vietnam for 14 years, do you seriously think the anti war movement actually had an effect? I don't.

Yes the Anti War movement did have an effect actually. What? do you think it was the Vietminh who drove the US out by force or something? One of the main reason why the US left Vietnam was due to the media and public opinion. The Vietminh knew they couldn't win a war against the US just by fighting and so used the media to their advantage.

Take the Lai Massacre or Tet Offensive. Both were Media successes for the Vietminh

LolaLuv

OP, I've been asking myself the same thing quite a bit lately. I think people are so used to being mindlessly entertained that they can't be bothered to do anything which requires effort. Who knows?

tricky D

Riddle101 wrote: »

Take the Lai Massacre or Tet Offensive. Both were Media successes for the Vietminh

Add on other events like Kent State, the 2 unforgettable photos by Nick Ut and Eddie Adams, but most importantly, it was the first TV war. I'm currently reading the Peter Arnett autobiography which has a fair bit on this. His unbiased reporting was so many headaches for LBJ that he ranted once about how that Australian Arnett should be taken out and shot.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

brianthebard

Riddle101 wrote: »

Yes the Anti War movement did have an effect actually. What? do you think it was the Vietminh who drove the US out by force or something? One of the main reason why the US left Vietnam was due to the media and public opinion. The Vietminh knew they couldn't win a war against the US just by fighting and so used the media to their advantage.

Take the Lai Massacre or Tet Offensive. Both were Media successes for the Vietminh

How long do you think it would have gone on without the anti war movement then? 20 years? longer? If a war lasts 14 years, to me that is an indication that protests had a minimal impact on the government.

ejmaztec

I think that despite the Rome demonstrations, most people have seen how ineffective anti-war protests have been in the past, and would rather get their message across in some other way than getting bashed on the head by a riot-cop. They're all bloggers now, probably not wishing to be led into violence by others who become involved purely for their own advancement, and not for any particular cause i.e. potential sell-outs.

A couple of prominent Marxist sh1t-stirrers involved in many UK riots of the 60s and 70s became respectable middle-of-the-road politicians, academics and or authors. One of these would be Tariq Ali, who always seemed to be at the forefront of any demo in London during those two decades. I think that Peter Hain was another. Now (ignoring minor indiscretions) - Pillars of the community.

tallus

I thought they left Vietnam because they got their asses kicked.

ejmaztec

tallus wrote: »

I thought they left Vietnam because they got their asses kicked.

Tactical withdrawal :P

turgon

tallus wrote: »

I thought they left Vietnam because they got their asses kicked.

Well even though it suits the OP's argument that this would not be the primary reason, but at the end of the day it probably is.

2Scoops

Riddle101 wrote: »

As a young guy(19) i find it annoying how young people my age don't have the heart anymore. Sure there are those out there that think the same way but young people today aren't with it. They're more into themselves and frankly couldn't care less about what's going on in the world.

If youngsters in the US were a bit more like that then they wouldn't join the army. Hey presto, problem solved.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

LolaLuv

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

That makes a lot of sense, if you ignore all the female protesters. :rolleyes:

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

LolaLuv

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Lol, you are a nut!! Surely you must believe in a certain level of altruism?

Overheal

Riddle101 wrote: »

If the Vietnam War has thought it's one thing, it's that the people's voice is a very powerful thing. As i'm sure a lot of you are aware, during the Vietnam War as the war continued public opinion dropped for the US Government and the morale of the US public was at a low. People grew angry and resentful of the government and what occurered as one of the finest times in history(In My Opinion) when people came together to protest the war. There were lot's of people backing the anti war movement, you had Muhammed Ali, Martin Luther King Jr, Army Veterns and more. The Anti War movement was a beautiful thing and it eventually led to the US's withdrawl from South Vietnam.

So what has happened to people today. Why don't we see movements like the one during the Vietnam War, i mean there are a lot of people unhappy with George Bush why don't people we see people doing something rather then sitting on their asses complaining about him. People have protested US intervention in the Middle East but it's not nearly as big as Vietnam. So what needs to be done? Maybe one of the reasons is because the Media is more conservative now. We have guys like Rupert Murdock who owns Sky News and Fox News the two biggest biased News Stations in the UK and US, who is pro government and will say what they think is right. Then we have young people. As a young guy(19) i find it annoying how young people my age don't have the heart anymore. Sure there are those out there that think the same way but young people today aren't with it. They're more into themselves and frankly couldn't care less about what's going on in the world.

I dunno, but people today have lost it. We could be a powerful force to be reckoned with yet nobody care. So what do we need to do to bring out the spirit in people?

I can't say for certain as it was way, way past my time? But the Vietnam War and the Iraq War is an Apple, and an Orange.

The Vietnam War was an engagement that nobody back home really cared about or wanted. And, you had The Draft, which helped people hate it all the more.

When 9/11 happened the first idea that popped into many peoples head was Kill Them All. Sure who wouldnt feel that way after that? Thats why we went to Afghanistan, under unanimous approval and thunderous applause (from what I saw, Im sure there was protest)

But, the Iraq War happened gradually, there was media confusion, we found Saddam, and this led to mixed approval. Not to mention, no Draft. Everyone there is there because they volunteered. And nobody is left over there from raw sentiments from 9/11 either: they would have renewed their service terms by now.

Apples and Oranges.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Riddle101

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

One little protest isn't going to solve it, even if it is the biggest in the world. Anti War demonstrations were going all the time in Vietnam for years. That's why the government became more concerned then, then they are now because it ain't giving the government enough fire

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Oh really, self interest? Then how do you explain the millions of protestors in France and Europe. They weren't effected by the Draft so why were there demonstations in France?

Overheal wrote: »

I can't say for certain as it was way, way past my time? But the Vietnam War and the Iraq War is an Apple, and an Orange.

The Vietnam War was an engagement that nobody back home really cared about or wanted. And, you had The Draft, which helped people hate it all the more.

When 9/11 happened the first idea that popped into many peoples head was Kill Them All. Sure who wouldnt feel that way after that? Thats why we went to Afghanistan, under unanimous approval and thunderous applause (from what I saw, Im sure there was protest)

But, the Iraq War happened gradually, there was media confusion, we found Saddam, and this led to mixed approval. Not to mention, no Draft. Everyone there is there because they volunteered. And nobody is left over there from raw sentiments from 9/11 either: they would have renewed their service terms by now.

Apples and Oranges.

The thing about Iraq is that there's no reason for the US to be in Iraq. I mean why did they go in? was it Nuclear Weapons? Saddam Hussein? Or was it oil? I mean forgive me for being unorginal here but it just seems to me like the US's affairs in Iraq are just to hold anti American sentiment down. I mean in Vietnam's case, you had the Cold War and Communism. The US were afraid of Communism and knew they would make more enemies so they they went in to help South Vietnam in order to keep it from turning Communist.

Same with Iraq. Saddam is a huge US hater and to have Iraq and Iran as anti American countries, it seems they might have feared a repeat of Vietnam with the domino affect being the Middle East turning Anti American. I mean look at who we had Iraq, Iran, Syria, Lybia all of which hate USA. Isreal is pretty much the only pro American country unless you count Saudi Arabia who have remained silent and Pakistan who have their own quarels.

Oh and by the way 9/11? Isn't Bin Laden supposed to be the villian in all this. Isn't he the one who orcastrated 9/11, isn't he the one behind Al Queda. He's supposed to be No.1 on America's top 10 most wanted list. yet ever since the US went into Iraq, it seems their primary focus was Saddam who had nothing to do with 9/11. Now we have one evil dictator dead but we still haven't got Bin Laden who's still on the run for 7 years

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Not everyone is a good egg. Fortunately there are some people who like to go to the extreme with things. But generally we do have people who are good natured and just want peace. like me

Overheal

Im not saying there isnt controversy with the Iraq decision. Far from it. But it would not be in comparison to the controversy over the Vietnam War, and thats what we are here discussing.