Hulver's site || Comments || Been At War So Long, Forgot About Peace

The sixties by ucblockhead (2.00 / 0) #20 Tue May 13, 2008 at 02:26:14 PM EST

The time period where people held mass protests against a war resulting in said war going on for enough 7-8 years and Nixon getting elected.

The effectiveness of protests is overrated.
----
_{ウセーバラケダ}
[ Parent ]

I agree . . . by slozo (2.00 / 0) #24 Tue May 13, 2008 at 02:48:55 PM EST

. . . now imagine a public that protests even less than that, despite an international military presence that dwarfs the former.

Unending war.

[ Parent ]

Nope by ucblockhead (2.00 / 0) #45 Tue May 13, 2008 at 04:07:00 PM EST

You assume that the anti-war protests actually do anything to stop war. They don't. They may in fact lengthen it by allowing the right to discredit the anti-war movement as a bunch of loony nutjobs. That's certainly how it went down in 2003.
----
_{ウセーバラケダ}
[ Parent ]

You assume too much . . . by slozo (2.00 / 0) #50 Tue May 13, 2008 at 04:13:38 PM EST

. . . I don't think protests are very effective at all at affecting change in government policy. I never advocated for more protests, simply wondered aloud at the lack of them. I do think protests are a relevent reflection of the popular opinion . . . and the lack of protests, contrasted with disasterous foreign policy, is a big sign of apathy for me.

But I'm just a crazy Canadian with crazy ideas about democratic accountability and public responsibility and civic duty . . .

[ Parent ]

: The lack of protests by ucblockhead (2.00 / 0) #51 Tue May 13, 2008 at 04:18:30 PM EST

Mostly caused by those that did go to the large protests we did have in 2003 noticing that a) they had no effect and b) that they merely gave Fox news an excuse to plaster dickwad anarchists smashing windows all over TV screens.
I ride by an indication of noncomplacency every day.
----
_{ウセーバラケダ}
[ Parent ]

Right let's look at the results by lm (2.00 / 0) #72 Fri May 16, 2008 at 09:27:54 AM EST

In the sixties, massive and sometimes violent protests led to a continuation and even escalation of the war.

In the present, virtually no protests have led to 2 of the three remaining serious contenders for the presidency arguing over who can end the war the most quickly.

There is no more degenerate kind of state than that in which the richest are supposed to be the best.
Cicero, The Republic
[ Parent ]

By the time the protests . . . by slozo (2.00 / 0) #73 Fri May 16, 2008 at 11:49:08 AM EST

. . . in the 60s reached the massive and violent stage, movements had already started for de-escalation, I thought. At any rate, we are talking about a lag of two to three years, so that by 73 there was a clear pullback.

In the present, there have actually been many large protests - just because the MSM doesn't advertise them to the public doesn't mean they didn't happen.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protests_against_the_2003_Iraq_war
And . . . 2/3?

Clinton can't be one of those . . . not with statements like this: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/06/juan-cole-clintons-iran-c_n_100327.html
I'm not buying a single piece of anti-war rhetoric coming from Clinton or even Obama, and I'm not sure why anyone else would be fooled. Both have declared the saintly state of Israel to be a continued close ally, with a built-in mutual defence agreement. Israel has been conducting practice bombing runs, public drills for missile attacks, and has ratchetted up the shrill "attack Iran NOW" scream to a dog-whistle pitch. I also don't see Obama actually winning without huge concessions/promises to Big Oil or the Military Industrial Complex.

Again, history will reveal me to be either a keen predictor or fearful pessimist; but I really don't see an end to war happening in the middle east. I see shifts to different regions and escalation in the future . . .

[ Parent ]

That page you linked to by lm (2.00 / 0) #74 Fri May 16, 2008 at 03:18:21 PM EST

According to that Wiki page, the largest single protest in the US was numbered at somewhere between 150k to 200k. Compare that to protests as large as 400k against the Vietnam War in 67 and 68, 600k in 69, and 500k in 70.

As far as Clinton and Obama, feel free to not take them at their word, but both have put forth concrete proposals to begin drawing down US troops as soon as they take office.

There is no more degenerate kind of state than that in which the richest are supposed to be the best.
Cicero, The Republic
[ Parent ]

Yes, aware of the numbers there . . . by slozo (2.00 / 0) #75 Fri May 16, 2008 at 03:42:57 PM EST

. . . and aware that they are smaller than the Vietnam ones. Hence, my initial comment that I am surprised that there are not more/larger protests now, despite similar approval ratings, a larger population, and supposedly better informed populace. I realise this is countered by no draft and less deaths for the invading army; but still, my opinion stands. The protests have been sizeable, but opposition has been well stifled considering the people's mood and situation, not mentioning the criminals in office directing things.

We'll see. Maybe.

[ Parent ]

: opposition has been well stifled? by lm (2.00 / 0) #76 Fri May 16, 2008 at 03:55:09 PM EST

Not sure what you mean by that. In the Vietnam era, opposition to the war was stifled, sometimes at gunpoint. The few, sporadic incidents of escorting folks wearing protest tee-shirts out of a handful of events today barely compares to what some Vietnam protesters went through.
I suppose you can call the protests of the Iraq war in the US sizable, but given that there have been larger protests in nations ranging from Canada to Spain and Germany, and given that the protests in the US are less than a third of the size of the protests against Vietnam despite forty years of population growth, I'm not so certain that is a good assessment.
There is no more degenerate kind of state than that in which the richest are supposed to be the best.
Cicero, The Republic
[ Parent ]