Support is growing - page 2

Support for conflict on the rise March 26 2003 The majority of Australians, Britons and Americans now back the coalition military assault on Iraq, despite mounting casualties and grim... Read More

  1. by   Stargazer
    Originally posted by Susy K
    ...if a poll called you up and asked if you support Bush's actions in Iraq, yes or no, how would you answer?
    Like all polls, it would depend on the order of the questions, the definitions given and how the questions were worded.

    Molecule: was such a change in support evident during the Vietnam conflict?
    I'm really not sure you can equate the two conflicts, or the mood of the country before or during those 2 events. For one thing, how long did it take before we actually admitted Vietnam was a war? For a long time, we weren't sending troops, we were sending "advisers." And ultimately, when we got into it, it dragged on a helluva lot longer than anyone thought it would. The mission wasn't clear. Historically, my understanding is that public support for the war deteriorated steadily after years of seeing shockingly high US casualty reports and seeing, for the first time, the dead and wounded nightly on the news.

    In other words, I think it's apples and oranges.
  2. by   Q.
    Originally posted by Stargazer

    In other words, I think it's apples and oranges.
    I would agree, but I took molecule's comment that growing support is expected in times of crisis and when troops are involved to be pretty general. He/she paralleled the two - I was following the parallel.
  3. by   Stargazer
    I think that's probably true, in a declared war. Vietnam wasn't declared as such for a very long time after we were well into it.

    In other words, I think WWII would maybe be a better parallel to the present war.

    (Or I might just be brain-dead 'cause I really need to go home now. Hard to tell. :zzzzz )
  4. by   molecule
    Vietnam showed public opinion all over the place, our fighting built up over years and declined over years. Johnson didn't run for a second term because of Vietnam; he had gotten a blank check from Congress in 1964 to continue the military buildup started by Kennedy. By 1967 unrest, largely a result of anti-war passion, was gigantic. Nixon ran as the candidate who would stop the war, he claimed to have a secret peace plan. But 'peace with honor' meant we couldn't look weak and he even widened the war. At one point the [october 1969] public was >60% against the war, then Nixon gave his famous 'Silent majority' speech, painted anti-war people as either radical college students or intellectual elites and publc opinion reversed very rapidly. the war continued on and on.
    Maybe that is the main thing about public opinion, it is fickle.