Where have all the war protesters gone?

Six minutes away from my home I would drive down the street and see war protesters, marching against the U.S. being involved in Iraq. They were angry that people were dying. Candidly, I was sad to hear of the deaths too. Did something change from a year ago? People are still dying, there's still a war going on:

"Baghdad, Iraq (CNN) -- At least 30 Iraqi children riding in a bus were among the 160 people killed in Sunday's twin car bombings in Baghdad, the Interior Ministry said Monday.

At least 540 people were wounded in Sunday's attacks, the deadliest in the capital in more than two years, the ministry said." - www.cnn.com...

Now, the news has coined "two wars" describing our international relations policy and for good reason:

"Kabul, Afghanistan (CNN) -- Fourteen Americans died in two helicopter crashes in Afghanistan on Monday, NATO's International Security Assistance Force said: 10 in one incident and four in the other." - www.cnn.com...

Shouldn't we have twice the protests? Or even the same group of protesters out there longer? Instead, I see no protesters.

[edit on 26-10-2009 by saint4God]

I think the whole ant-war mentality is "uncool" these days. I mean look at Hollywood. Even they are "support the troops" more than ever. It's almost unAmerican these days to even think about criticizing the war let alone the troops. Which always puzzles me. I sure as hell don't expect Americans to treat our troops like the Vietnam vets were treated but how the hell can you be against war/the war yet support the troops? You don't have to be disrespectful towards anyone serving but come on people. Americans want their cake and to eat it to more than ever. That's the problem. Also besides the families that are involved with someone in the service how is the war really affecting any of us?

Compare and contrast WWII and Vietnam. WWII people had to ration everything. The war effort directly affected every American. Look at Vietnam.....the media, journalists etc. did a MUCH better job reporting the atrocities or the graphic nature of war in my opinion. EVERYTHING is controlled in the media. Where are the gory, bloody in your face pics of the war in Afghanistan? All we do in the US is "HEAR" about the war. The graphic nature of war is almost nonexistent in mainstream media. Even on the internet there is very little upfront in your face pictures and video of the war. Everything is sanitized. I think that's the biggest problem in America.

We are so far removed from war nowadays. Just like the powers that be want us to be. Numb and uninformed.

The war protesters have been betrayed and Obama is dancing in the streets singing hallelujah.

The real protesters, the ones that do not turn their backs on other people of the world, still believe the Military Industrial Complex should be destroyed. War is profit, or explain to me again what it is about again. We have been at continual war for 50 years, and who has it helped, you got it.

For the Democrats and the liberals it was a means to an end. Demonize the Republicans so that they now can profit from the war. Different master, same outcome. What you should have asked was, where have all the hypocritical war protesters gone?

Just saying.

They've switched their signs from " Make love not war" to "Will work for food"

reply to post by EyesWideShut


That made me laugh!

Have you seen the debacle in Detroit a few weeks ago? The government was giving money away. Listen to these idiots. They breed some dumb ones in my country.

reply to post by saint4God


Truth be told, most of the anti war groups were people on the far left, take a look at the groups who organized most of the demonstrations.

It was mostly a "Bash Bush over the head" reflex than anything truly about the wars. You would think they would have been up in arms about Obama's "it's a war of necessity" and troop increase he did, if they were truly just anti-war. Instead you heard a whimper, if even that.

Take a look at the organizing groups behind the anti-war rallies and who funded them, you will find the majority of them leaned heavily Democratic.

It was more about politics than it was about morality.......





[edit on 26-10-2009 by pavil]

It was a protest against Bush. Now that he's gone, they don't want to push Obama on the issue and make him make a difficult choice. If the war succeeds, he can claim victory. If it goes badly, he can blame Bush.

reply to post by endisnighe


Yeah it's disgusting. Sometimes I don't blame the powers that be for wanting to instill population control and eugenics. Oh but they are just "uneducated" and "Poor" and dont have the opportunities that others have.

I agree with Zo that war today is sanitized to no end. During the Bush years, media was explicitly denied the right to take pictures of coffins arriving back from the war because they felt it would undermine "moral".

Most people just don't "get it". I have been criticized here by stating that the best way to support our troops has been to bring them all home. You can be a patriot all you want as long as the shooting isn't pointed at you.

I don't know if this makes any sense, but back during Vietnam many of the protests were centered around the fact that the powers in charge wanted to send me into some jungle against my will. There was a draft back then and when you got your letter that started with the infamous words, "Greetings, from the President of the United States", you were screwed six ways from Sunday.

Now, with an all volunteer service I think most people feel that our troops are just doing their job "to keep us free".

I made a statement some time ago on a website I run that any politician that makes a decision to send troops into a war zone needs to place a simple white marker out on the White House lawn, directly visible from the office window, for every casualty that ensues from that decision. And that brings up another point. By casualty I mean killed AND wounded. The overall deaths don't seem to be that large compared to how long we've been there because many of the injuries that would have killed you in Vietnam don't today because of advanced medical procedures. Another fact that gets overlooked in the sanitized news we are fed.

People are too busy playing with their new cell phones to care about what's happening on the other side of the world....oh, look, American Idol is on......makes me want to spit.

I think it is obvious

They replaced the people in the holding room where all the come lately fiscal conservation patriots were hiding out for eight years.

Originally posted by EyesWideShut
They've switched their signs from " Make love not war" to "Will work for food"

OMG that's hilarious,

reply to post by saint4God


They are all losing their jobs and homes to foreclosures, plus now they have to worry about the swine flu and sudden death.

reply to post by EyesWideShut


I have to give it to you, you made the best post so far.

Originally posted by US_Centurion
It was a protest against Bush. Now that he's gone, they don't want to push Obama on the issue and make him make a difficult choice. If the war succeeds, he can claim victory. If it goes badly, he can blame Bush.

I think you've hit the nail on the head here. I was never actively involved in the protests... but I consider myself to be anti-war. These people who were protesting weren't really that anti-war. They were just anti-Bush. If it's a Republican doing it it's awful... but put the Democrats in and it all becomes okay.

I'll only reiterate what has already been stated. The anti-war protests, for the most part, were never about the war so much as the man in the White House and plain, old fashioned politics. The fact that they've now disappeared since their guy has assumed office was entirely predictable.

Maybe the reason why is that spending all the money, energy, time to protest the war has already been proven; Has it been proven that protesting the U.S.A. Administration's policy won't change the massive money, energy, time that they are spending overseas while it could be used in the United States?

[edit on 26-10-2009 by problemsolvr]

Originally posted by problemsolvr
Maybe the reason why is that spending all the money, energy, time to protest the war has already been proven; Has it been proven that protesting the U.S.A. Administration's policy won't change the massive money, energy, time that they are spending overseas while it could be used in the United States?

My question is, have we tried? The Tea Party is the only group I've heard of recently though they've not been in the news recently. Although that's a wide umbrella of issues, no doubt if there were enough protesters, that would get some attention...especially if it were 51% of voters.

[edit on 27-10-2009 by saint4God]

reply to post by saint4God


This is an question those on right have been bringing up for some time, and really the answer is there, but I guess its just a matter of questioning motives.

Iraq is already within a 2 year withdrawal process to which the vast majority of the left wanted. Afghanistan was never really the centerpoint for the anti-war protestors because we know that troops are in Afghanistan as the result of 9/11. Not everybody is a truther, most like myself believed we were attacked by Taliban terrorists back in 01' and in this fact we either continue to support operations in afghanistan or we stay neutral. There are still a fair number of those on left who feel its time for withdrawal but the vast majority know the reasoning is due to 9/11.

So thats why dont see any more anti-war protests. I do find it rather interesting though that former supporters of the war on the rightwing are now accusing this administration of continuing it. Its rather confusing.

[edit on 27-10-2009 by Southern Guardian]

Originally posted by Southern Guardian
Iraq is already within a 2 year withdrawal process to which the vast majority of the left wanted.

How's that working out?

"October 27, 2009 6:12 p.m. EDT. Baghdad, Iraq (CNN) -- Iraqi officials on Tuesday released security camera video of two weekend bombings that killed at least 155 people -- the deadliest attacks in the capital in more than two years." - www.cnn.com...

So the protests are only against American lives being lost?

Originally posted by Southern Guardian
Afghanistan was never really the centerpoint for the anti-war protestors because we know that troops are in Afghanistan as the result of 9/11.

Wasn't the complaint that Osama isn't in Afghanistan?

Originally posted by Southern Guardian
Not everybody is a truther, most like myself believed we were attacked by Taliban terrorists back in 01' and in this fact we either continue to support operations in afghanistan or we stay neutral. There are still a fair number of those on left who feel its time for withdrawal but the vast majority know the reasoning is due to 9/11.

So thats why dont see any more anti-war protests.

Thank you for this perspective, it is a help.

Originally posted by Southern Guardian
I do find it rather interesting though that former supporters of the war on the rightwing are now accusing this administration of continuing it. Its rather confusing.

That would be confusing, though last I'd seen on Fox News (I watch it in addition to CNN and C-Span), the rightwing wants more troops in Afghanistan and are frustrated at President Obama's hesitation. I'm anti-war/terrorism, but if stopping war/terrorism means more troops there (or less) than so be it. The puzzle with protesters remains with me still.

[edit on 27-10-2009 by saint4God]

here's a little something to stir up some anti-war sentiments



I can't understand why mankind hasn't evolved out of using war when communication is so easy. Greed and self-righteousness are running the show.

starred and flagged for reminding us all to make this issue a priority

[edit on 10/27/2009 by sad_eyed_lady]