Reply #181: IMO...

[Javaman]

The time for a "Woodstock" type happening during the present era came and past with morons* reign of terror.

The one crucial element absent from the stew of insanity was the draft.

If there was a draft during morons* reign of terror, there would have been a modern version of Woodstock like event.

No draft; No outrage. No outrage; No movement.

Don't get me wrong there was still plenty of really pissed off people, myself included, but as long as "someone" else's kid was getting blown to bits, the personal toll on the general public was small.

During the woodstock era, I had a cousin and two close neighbors serving over in Viet Nam. The effect on our family was personal as it was for others in our neighborhood who also had family members serving.

The population of the US in 1969 was roughly 200 million people. The troop levels in Viet Nam was almost 500,000 soldiers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1970_United_States_Census

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/U.S._Troop_levels_in_Vietnam_...

Today, our population is 305 million and the troops in Iraq and afghanistan are roughly: 100,000 Iraq and 32,000 in Afghanistan. 132,000 soldiers.

There is no draft today, there was a draft then.

.25 percent of the pop served in Viet Nam with the over hanging threat of being drafted.

Today, .04 percent of the population is serving in the middle east with no threat of a draft.

Now, don't get me wrong, I want us out of both countries and have stated many times in the past via my posts, however, given the stats above, people wonder why there is no massive protests on the scale that was seen during the Viet Nam era?

Simple, this war is a war fought through media and propaganda. Hear me out, the same was tried during Viet Nam, but there wasn't 24 hour news filled with corporate shills that "crafted" the news to fit the story. There weren't corporate controlled newspapers that were more concerned with getting ad revenue then putting out a story. Back then, the reported stories are what made people read and buy the papers.

Today, people can tune in or jump on the net to get very bias news to fit their mentality. Back then, all the news was reported whether the white house or the general public liked it or not.

To me, Woodstock, although a concert was a protest. A protest against the prevailing winds of nationalism. Yes, there were drugs, sex and whatever else, but given the fact that these same attendees could also be looking down the business end of a rifle because of the draft, the sense of release, living for the moment, an "carefree" attitude was evident and needed.

Many similarities can be made between today's wars and Viet Nam, but in the end, the stats prove the fact that: less people are directly effected and there is no draft.

There were demonstrations a few years ago, during morons* rule, but were are those protests now? We still have troops in both nations, people are still being blown to bits and the level of soldiers are increasing in Afghanistan. So, were are the protests? Is the difference now is that there was a high functioning moron* as president then, and now we have a president that is intelligent and someone we wanted and wasn't appointed?

That's for a longer post.

To me, Woodstock was necessary. If Woodstock didn't happen, it just would have happened someplace else.