There were few (if any) large-scale protests when, in August 1964, Congress passed the Tonkin Gulf Resolution effectively declaring war on the Communist government in North Vietnam. Yet, hundreds of thousands (maybe even millions) rallied in cities across the country in 2003 to oppose the impending U.S. (and coalition) war against Saddam’s regime. Even the organizers don’t claim more than 100,000 attended yesterday’s rally. And as I noted above, most observers believe that number to be inflated.
As the war in Vietnam escalated so too did the protests back home, that is, the rallies got bigger. But, as our troops continue to fight the terrorists in Iraq, the size of the rallies has not so increased. Those who follow what’s really going in Iraq know that our involvement there is nothing like that in Vietnam. Although we are experiencing a few setbacks, we are winning the war. And the inability of the anti-war movement to draw a large crowd for their rally yesterday shows that the situation back in the U.S. is nothing like it was in the Vietnam era.
And I might also add Sane people were protesting the war back then to. Now the lunatic kooks are out in force protesting.
Look at the election in '04... the polls went big for Kerry. When you corrected the sampling Biases designed to -MAKE- the polls look big for Kerry the numbers pretty much reflected what was actually going on.
The same polling companies are the ones who tell us that we are becoming more and more upset with the Iraq war.
I think we can still look at things like this and most certainly this as a reason as to why the protests aren't to vietnam levels... but that can't be it.
You can also go to the no collective sacrifice angle ( the war taxes, the draft, etc)
But I just don't think thats it either. because Wars aren't really popular when they are going on.
I think the size of the anti-war movement is smaller then advertised.. but How small I can't say.
the people who show up... well thats easy. they are small because they scare people