[millie_(A)TCK]

Vietnam was the first televised war and the images of American casualties galvanized opposition against the war. The First Gulf war in Jean Baurdrillard's words was experienced as a game, it didn't take place. There wasn't as much public interest in the first gulf war, and even less now in the second gulf war as was the case in Vietnam. This despite the advent of the internet where one can obtain in-depth, up to the minute, panoramic information on the current war. What could be the reason in your opinion for this shift in the public perception of war in just twenty years?

[NoRapture]

In the U.S. it would have a lot to do with no longer having a conscripted military. So neither opposers nor supporters really have any stake in these conflicts. Of course those enlisted in the military have feelings about the war but they are in a smaller minority than those in the 60's and early 70's. And of course, as you pointed out, the lack of news-coverage of a war is a new development in the U.S. and free-world. Which serves to make such bloody and deadly conflict nearly invisible. I find it bitterly ironic that Americans are morbidly preoccupied with sick violence in fictitious, cinematic, and "true crime" form but want nothing at all to do with the sick violence they themselves are actually and culpably involved in through the policies of their nation.

[Dan]

I'm not sure what you're talking about. Iraq 2 was all over the media and it lasted that way for quite a while. Interest has dropped off the last couple years because violence is minimal and the war is more or less won; so the media has instead started covering Afghanistan again, where things have picked up again.

As for the Gulf War, it didn't even last 2 months and allied casualties were limited. It was a masterfully planned war that was excellently executed. There was simply not enough time for vast media coverage.

[Dave]

The American people are patriotic and were rightly infuriated by the despicable, treasonous coverage of the Vietnam War. The media learned its lesson and reshaped its coverage, which coincided with the Pentagon learning its own lessons and conducting what amounts to a PsyOps campaign on our own media (e.g. "embedded reporters").

NoRapture is right to point out that conscription is also part of the reason. The student protesters during Vietnam were cowards who didn't want to share the sacrifice of their brothers from lower social classes, and therefore protested the war on false moral grounds. The all volunteer military has exposed these selfish scumbags for what they really are, as with their own asses not on the line anymore most are unable to summon up the "morality" that was employed during the Vietnam War.

I'm not really sure that the level of casualties have much to do with it. The death rate in Vietnam amounted to fewer than 150 men per week. For comparison, adjusted for population size France lost 10,000 men per day for four years during World War I.

[millie_(A)TCK]

I'm not sure what you're talking about. Iraq 2 was all over the media and it lasted that way for quite a while. Interest has dropped off the last couple years because violence is minimal and the war is more or less won; so the media has instead started covering Afghanistan again, where things have picked up again.

I am not discussing media attention, but public perception which has been to a large degree apathetic and what norapture said maybe the most accurate reason, for why that is so.

As for the Gulf War, it didn't even last 2 months and allied casualties were limited. It was a masterfully planned war that was excellently executed. There was simply not enough time for vast media coverage.

The speed of the first gulf war is a good point.

The American people are patriotic and were rightly infuriated by the despicable, treasonous coverage of the Vietnam War.

The media learned its lesson and reshaped its coverage, which coincided with the Pentagon learning its own lessons and conducting what amounts to a PsyOps campaign on our own media (e.g. "embedded reporters").

The public have a right to access unfilterted information. Unless its a real security breach, the government has no right to meddle with the news.

NoRapture is right to point out that conscription is also part of the reason. The student protesters during Vietnam were cowards who didn't want to share the sacrifice of their brothers from lower social classes, and therefore protested the war on false moral grounds. The all volunteer military has exposed these selfish scumbags for what they really are, as with their own asses not on the line anymore most are unable to summon up the "morality" that was employed during the Vietnam War.

Thats an interesting reason even though I disagree with your patriotic notion of "sacrifice".

[Dave]

I am not discussing media attention, but public perception which has been to a large degree apathetic and what norapture said maybe the most accurate reason, for why that is so.

The public wishes to support wars once they have started out of a sense of affirming the body national and national myths. This intersects perfectly with the goals of the national security state. It is the (partial) triumph of the original America and the manipulative, sinister national security state over the liberal America.

:?:

While the media did originally support the Vietnam policy (tepidly), ideals promoted by groups such as SDS took over and the media increasingly portrayed the war as hopeless and even evil. The Pentagon Papers, the analysis of which turned out to be false, were illegally published by the media to damage the war, and no retraction or reflection was ever issued when it emerged that the Viet Cong had in fact been defeated. The media also favorably portrayed the Vietnam Veterans Against the War, which used fake veterans and politically motivated ones (e.g. John Kerry) to gather fraudulent testimonies (and outright fabrications) of US atrocities. This was reported relatively uncritically, even though simple investigative journalism would've exposed this fraud. Eventually Stolen Valor would expose the deception 25 years after the fact.

The public have a right to access unfilterted information. Unless its a real security breach, the government has no right to meddle with the news.

"Rights" are a product of authority and traditional and do not have any metaphysical significance. Given that "unfiltered information" presented through the mass media is propaganda and serves to engineer (or unmake) consent, it is very much a public issue.

Thats an interesting reason even though I disagree with your patriotic notion of "sacrifice".

I do not have a favorable opinion of any of the wars mentioned in this thread. Dispense with notions of patriotism altogether and consider that when people subordinate themselves to a group of any sort they are often willing to sacrifice themselves for the greater good of the group. Militaries have always played on this instinct.

[millie_(A)TCK]

I don't like going around in circles Dave but its clear we will be going back to old discussions about the existence of rights, and the (ir)relevance of group solidarity. But thanks for your input nevertheless.

[Dave]

[1]Do you accept that rights are human creations and enforced by human institutions?
[2]Do you accept that social groups do exist and that members of these groups may exhibit solidarity?

If the answer to both of these questions are yes, then there is no reason for discussion. Any such discussion of these issues would then be restricted to what value and desirability we place upon these, which is not what this thread is for.

[millie_(A)TCK]

[1]Do you accept that rights are human creations and enforced by human institutions?

No.

[Dave]

No.

Are you religious?

[millie_(A)TCK]

Guess?

[Dave]

Guess?

The logically consistent answer would be yes, but this would not follow the general direction of your weltanschauung.

[millie_(A)TCK]

Evidently
viewtopic.php?f=23&t=110415\

[Dave]

If you are an atheist then what is your basis for disagreeing with point one?

[millie_(A)TCK]

I've answered this question to you before Dave, its innate, and I've explained how this is so, but Dave, as much as you push this discussion forward, I am ending it now because its been a quagmire with you. You're a social darwinist racist and I am your antithesis, a debate is counter-productive.
[/end]

[Dave]

Innate to what and why? If you have answered this question before please provide me with a link so that I can digest it. That I am a "social Darwinst racist" is obfuscation.

Regardless, even if we regard rights as being innate and having metaphysical value, there is no particular reason that the state (or any other institution) would choose to respect this. Thus the flow of information and the form of propaganda is a matter concern to the government, albeit one which transgresses against these innate rights.

[Huntster]

There wasn't as much public interest in the first gulf war, and even less now in the second gulf war as was the case in Vietnam. This despite the advent of the internet where one can obtain in-depth, up to the minute, panoramic information on the current war. What could be the reason in your opinion for this shift in the public perception of war in just twenty years?

Today's internet information is not the spoon-fed propaganda that CBS, NBC, and ABC fed us in the 60's and 70's.

NoRapture is right to point out that conscription is also part of the reason. The student protesters during Vietnam were cowards who didn't want to share the sacrifice of their brothers from lower social classes, and therefore protested the war on false moral grounds. The all volunteer military has exposed these selfish scumbags for what they really are, as with their own asses not on the line anymore most are unable to summon up the "morality" that was employed during the Vietnam War.

This is, by far, the main reason for the difference in social acceptance and it also takes away the student protest tools that the former network giants used to manipulate public opinion. This is the reason the DoD fights any attempt to conscript again.

[NoRapture]

The all volunteer military has exposed these selfish scumbags for what they really are, as with their own asses not on the line anymore most are unable to summon up the "morality" that was employed during the Vietnam War.

Both Iraq I and II were started by scumbag, deserting cowards named Bush and Cheney. Popi Bush deserted his crew and plane over the ocean to bail out and save his cowardly, guilded ass during WWII. Baby Bush was insulated by Popi in a Guard unit from which he knew he'd never have to serve in combat. And even then he showed up for exactly three drills the whole three years he was hiding with his coke, booze, and mommy in Kennebunkport. And Cheney, as the world knows, applied for and received nine deferments. To take a surly stand for a war, cheer on the deaths of thousands of Marines and GI's, and excuse yourself from actual participation to cower behind skirts and preppy deferments is the lowest of the low. At least an opposer to a war takes a public stand. The men who brought us Iraq are stinking, cowardly criminals who deserve public execution before an approving and, no doubt, cheering world.

[millie_(A)TCK]

Innate to what and why? If you have answered this question before please provide me with a link so that I can digest it.

You can just as well search for it.

Regardless, even if we regard rights as being innate and having metaphysical value, there is no particular reason that the state (or any other institution) would choose to respect this. Thus the flow of information and the form of propaganda is a matter concern to the government, albeit one which transgresses against these innate rights.

Metaphysics doesn't play a part in human rights being innate ergo modern states are just mutations and not the ideal.

[Dave]

Both Iraq I and II were started by scumbag, deserting cowards named Bush and Cheney. Popi Bush deserted his crew and plane over the ocean to bail out and save his cowardly, guilded ass during WWII. Baby Bush was insulated by Popi in a Guard unit from which he knew he'd never have to serve in combat. And even then he showed up for exactly three drills the whole three years he was hiding with his coke, booze, and mommy in Kennebunkport. And Cheney, as the world knows, applied for and received nine deferments. To take a surly stand for a war, cheer on the deaths of thousands of Marines and GI's, and excuse yourself from actual participation to cower behind skirts and preppy deferments is the lowest of the low. At least an opposer to a war takes a public stand. The men who brought us Iraq are stinking, cowardly criminals who deserve public execution before an approving and, no doubt, cheering world.

I have no disagreement with most of this NR, but this does not alter my assessment of the majority of Vietnam-era student protesters.

Metaphysics doesn't play a part in human rights being innate ergo modern states are just mutations and not the ideal.

What is it that makes human rights innate then? Is there a human rights organ that medical science has failed to discover? Is the true purpose of the appendix the provision of this innate human rights?