Were there protests against the Gulf War?

Grand Admiral Thrawn · Post by **Grand Admiral Thrawn** » 2003-02-24 09:07pm

Did the peaceniks object to Desert Storm or did they keep quiet?

phongn · Post by **phongn** » 2003-02-24 09:13pm

Yes, there were protests.

TrailerParkJawa · Post by **TrailerParkJawa** » 2003-02-24 09:14pm

There were protests. I do not think they were as big as this time.

Grand Admiral Thrawn · Post by **Grand Admiral Thrawn** » 2003-02-24 09:17pm

1. How large? Hundreads? Thousands?
2. WHY?

Wicked Pilot · Post by **Wicked Pilot** » 2003-02-24 09:22pm

I was in elementry school then, so my memory is quite lacking, but I do remember there was a lot of controversy over the war. However, the objections seemed to be based on fear that the war would be another Vietnam. That, obviousily was put to rest.

Recently, I watched a videoed round table discussion of former secretaries of defense that took place only a few months before the air campaign. That idiot McNamara was predicting american bodies littering the sand, and said that sanctions would work after a few months in effect. Many of the other secretaries were of similiar opinion. Rumsfield on the other hand was gun-ho, and correctly predicted the route that ensued.

Montcalm · Post by **Montcalm** » 2003-02-24 09:24pm

They were chanting, no blood for oil no blood for oil.

phongn · Post by **phongn** » 2003-02-24 09:25pm

They weren't nearly as large as the current ones, that's for sure.

Howedar · Post by **Howedar** » 2003-02-24 09:29pm

I was in a protest. The teachers at my elementery school apparently decided that the kids should protest the war. Of course, I was like 5, I didn't know what was going on or what I was doing, I just went to the gym like everyone else.

Fuckers, using kids to further their political views.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-02-24 10:32pm

phongn wrote:They weren't nearly as large as the current ones, that's for sure.

The military deployment and scope of the campaign wasn't as large as the current one either. I don't see it as an inconsistency.

Ted · Post by **Ted** » 2003-02-24 10:35pm

Darth Wong wrote:
phongn wrote:They weren't nearly as large as the current ones, that's for sure.
The military deployment and scope of the campaign wasn't as large as the current one either. I don't see it as an inconsistency.

Ratio wise, I think the previous war had more protesters.

This war has about 3 protestors to each soldier, the previous one had more.

phongn · Post by **phongn** » 2003-02-24 10:37pm

Darth Wong wrote:
phongn wrote:They weren't nearly as large as the current ones, that's for sure.
The military deployment and scope of the campaign wasn't as large as the current one either. I don't see it as an inconsistency.

The actual number of troops in DS was larger, I think, by quite a bit, though the scope of the campaign wasn't as big.

Ted · Post by **Ted** » 2003-02-24 10:43pm

phongn wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:
phongn wrote:They weren't nearly as large as the current ones, that's for sure.
The military deployment and scope of the campaign wasn't as large as the current one either. I don't see it as an inconsistency.
The actual number of troops in DS was larger, I think, by quite a bit, though the scope of the campaign wasn't as big.

How many in DS1?

There's over 150,000 US Army and Marines in the region, not to mention the US Navy and Air Force personell.

RedImperator · Post by **RedImperator** » 2003-02-24 10:46pm

If I recall correctly, there were protests, but nothing on the scale of what we've had for the last few weeks. On the other hand, I remember there was a lot more generalized unease amongst those who WEREN'T protesting. Everyone was expecting Vietnam II.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-02-24 10:49pm

RedImperator wrote:If I recall correctly, there were protests, but nothing on the scale of what we've had for the last few weeks. On the other hand, I remember there was a lot more generalized unease amongst those who WEREN'T protesting. Everyone was expecting Vietnam II.

Very true. Peoples' memories are short. Before the war started, the Soviet quagmire in Afghanistan was very much on everyones' minds. Editorials in both left and right-wing newspapers contained a LOT of hand-wringing about it.

Ted · Post by **Ted** » 2003-02-24 10:51pm

Darth Wong wrote:
RedImperator wrote:If I recall correctly, there were protests, but nothing on the scale of what we've had for the last few weeks. On the other hand, I remember there was a lot more generalized unease amongst those who WEREN'T protesting. Everyone was expecting Vietnam II.
Very true. Peoples' memories are short. Before the war started, the Soviet quagmire in Afghanistan was very much on everyones' minds. Editorials in both left and right-wing newspapers contained a LOT of hand-wringing about it.

Was it thought that it might extend into Afganistan at all?

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-02-24 10:59pm

Ted wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:
RedImperator wrote:If I recall correctly, there were protests, but nothing on the scale of what we've had for the last few weeks. On the other hand, I remember there was a lot more generalized unease amongst those who WEREN'T protesting. Everyone was expecting Vietnam II.
Very true. Peoples' memories are short. Before the war started, the Soviet quagmire in Afghanistan was very much on everyones' minds. Editorials in both left and right-wing newspapers contained a LOT of hand-wringing about it.
Was it thought that it might extend into Afganistan at all?

No, but it was the most recent scenario in which a giant superpower marched in to stomp what appeared to be an inferior opponent, and its poor outcome weighed on peoples' minds.

RedImperator · Post by **RedImperator** » 2003-02-24 11:36pm

There were signs that Iraq wasn't going to be a repeat of Vietnam. Grenada was an American walkover, though I don't know how hard it is to kick over two hot dogs stands and frighten some sunbathers. Panama was a stomping with very few civilian casualties, though again, nobody took Panama very seriously as a great military power.

Ted · Post by **Ted** » 2003-02-24 11:40pm

RedImperator wrote:There were signs that Iraq wasn't going to be a repeat of Vietnam. Grenada was an American walkover, though I don't know how hard it is to kick over two hot dogs stands and frighten some sunbathers. Panama was a stomping with very few civilian casualties, though again, nobody took Panama very seriously as a great military power.

Grenada didn't even have a military.

It was full of guys who didn't want to be there, yet it took along time for the Marines to defeat them.

Hell, by that record, the Canadians would last generations against the Americans, probably even BEAT them.

The Americans had Panama under their jackbooted goosestepping rule for a while, quite obvious that they would have no problems there.

RedImperator · Post by **RedImperator** » 2003-02-24 11:51pm

Ted wrote:The Americans had Panama under their jackbooted goosestepping rule for a while, quite obvious that they would have no problems there.

Glad to see your temp ban had such a positive effect on your knee-jerk America bashing. Panama was a contested invasion. Noreiga's forces tried to fight, but they got crushed with very few civilian casualties caught in the crossfire and even fewer Americans killed, even though much of the fighting took place in Panama City. It was the first large-scale demonstration of the high-tech U.S. military--overwhelming firepower concentrated on critical pinpoints to unravel an opposing army with limited exposure of American forces or noncombatants. Ten years earlier, we would have had to carpet bomb Panama City and call down mile wide artillery and air strikes on entrenched enemy positions, just like Vietnam, with thousands more dead, mostly Panamanian.

Tsyroc · Post by **Tsyroc** » 2003-02-25 12:04am

One of the protests I remember was a reworked version of "Give Peace A Chance". It was mostly the same but Sean Lennon redid some of the lyrics. I think I saw the video on MTV a total of 2 times.

It came across more like a bunch of ex-hippies trying to relive their war protester glory days more than an actual protest.

From August to the middle of December of 1990 I was deployed so I really on saw anything like protests (that I recall) up until the air compaign started. I was a little more distratcted about being home and seeing on the news that 23 of my shipmates died in a ferry accident of the coast of Jaiffa, Israel.

When I flew into the Norfolk, VA airport the people there were very nice to me. I even had on an obnoxious "I'd fly 10,000 Miles to Smoke a Camel" t-shirt. Granted, Norfolk is a military town but for what it's worth I didn't see any type of protesting. This would have been around the 14-15th of December.

Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi · Post by **Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi** » 2003-02-25 06:38pm

Although I was eating lunch form my mother's boob during the war, I read that some politicians and media outlets were predicting tens of thousands of military casualties recently, and it ended up that there was only a fraction of that.

I'm guessing there are more prtoesters for the current campaign on Iraq because may feel that the current accuasations on Saddam aren't as justifiable as the ones during the Gulf War. But hey, peaceniks are peaceniks, and some won't support war no matter what.

Spanky The Dolphin · Post by **Spanky The Dolphin** » 2003-02-25 07:09pm

Yeah, I was only about nine years old during Operation Desert Storm, but what protests there were were more about people not wanting it to become another Vietnam, where thousands of soldiers would die over a period of several years to a decade, and not a "please think of the children!!" or "America's grudge" kind thing it is now.

phongn · Post by **phongn** » 2003-02-25 07:17pm

Ted wrote:
phongn wrote:
Darth Wong wrote: The military deployment and scope of the campaign wasn't as large as the current one either. I don't see it as an inconsistency.
The actual number of troops in DS was larger, I think, by quite a bit, though the scope of the campaign wasn't as big.
How many in DS1?

There's over 150,000 US Army and Marines in the region, not to mention the US Navy and Air Force personell.

There were over 500,000 US troops from all services along with around 200,000 allied troops.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-02-25 07:20pm

Darth Wong wrote:
phongn wrote:They weren't nearly as large as the current ones, that's for sure.
The military deployment and scope of the campaign wasn't as large as the current one either. I don't see it as an inconsistency.

Actually America deployed more then twice the forces, 500,000 men vs. 160,000, six carriers vs. three, hell the USAF sent as many aircraft to fight in Desert storm as it has total today.

theski · Post by **theski** » 2003-02-25 09:10pm

As to the general unease before DS, I remember a former general claiming we would lose as many as 65,000 men fighting the "Mother of all Battles"