Riots

[ordos45]

Am I the only person who thinks this is bound to happen?

[Dante]

I'm not so sure... I'll go for the first option though, because it took that much to get riots before.

[ordos45]

I think so too, we're slow to notice rising body count, but look at the outcry in America when 120 deaths occurred in a month after the end of 'major combat'.

[Wolf]

To be honest, I think we would require even less deaths per day to achieve riots.

I think, because of the skill with which the media can whip a population into a frenzy, the moment we lose any large number of men in one day (say, 100), everything will be set in motion. The media will hop on it like a hyena in heat, and the various US anti-war groups will seize that opportunity to stage mass-protests, which, naturally, will generate counter-protests, and everything will degenerate into a mob-scene with the omnipresent media faithfully throwing gasoline on any sparks that fly out.

[Kiyouta]

Oh sure, when will riots breakout in the USA, oh THEN its serious...

People are already rioting in Iraq - people who are 'liberated' don't normally do that. But what would Bush know...

[ordos45]

Oh sure, when will riots breakout in the USA, oh THEN its serious...

People are already rioting in Iraq - people who are 'liberated' don't normally do that. But what would Bush know...

I never said it wasn't serious, you made that assumption on your own.  You know what they say about assuming, it makes an ass of you and me.

This will sound heartless, but I'd rather see continued riots in Iraq, rather than on the streets of my own nation and Iraq.  I have a thing against watching our military having to be used against our own populace.

[otheymzefedaykin]

Vote : Other

The revolts have started! ::)

[ordos45]

The revolts have started! ::)

In Iraq yes, in America it's peaceful protests at the moment.  Unlike Iraq, I don't see our civilians carrying AK-47s and RPG Launchers to protests.

[exatreide]

Yet....Give me a week....

[Anathema]

I voted for the Vietnam average, but I don't expect that to ever happen (fortunately).

I think there is also a chance though that riots will break out if Bush doens't turn over the power to the Iraqis at the set date, or doesn't pull back his troops after a few years.

[Dante]

Yet....Give me a week....

Ominous.... And yet heartening.  :) 

[Edric O]

I think, because of the skill with which the media can whip a population into a frenzy, the moment we lose any large number of men in one day (say, 100), everything will be set in motion. The media will hop on it like a hyena in heat, and the various US anti-war groups will seize that opportunity to stage mass-protests, which, naturally, will generate counter-protests, and everything will degenerate into a mob-scene with the omnipresent media faithfully throwing gasoline on any sparks that fly out.

From what I hear of your media, it is firmly in the republicans' pocket. So, if anything, the media will be the one whipping up the counter-riots.

But as far as standing up to your government goes, the general American public is rather... how shall I put this... what's a more moderate synonym for "spineless"?

Case in point:

When a massive terrorist attack hits Spain, the people pour onto the streets in the millions to oust the incompetent government who let it happen (and lied about it to boot).

When a massive terrorist attack hits the USA, support for the government soares to unprecedent levels.

(then again, I shouldn't be the one to talk - if the Americans are spineless, then Romanians are invertebrates; I never cease to be amazed at the amount of crap our government and private businesses are able to get away with, without so much as a single protest by my apathetic countrymen)

[nemafakei]

Other: when the media has hold of US soldiers being tortured in similar ways to certain Iraqis of late. Or after the handover of power, when US soldiers are given long prison sentences for any war crimes (or 'peacetime' crimes, if you prefer).

[Wolf]

Oh, no, Edric, in many ways you are correct. However, I disagree whole-heartedly that the media is in the "Republican's pocket". I believe that the media is, above all else, a business. I think that, because of this, it switches sides, you could say, based on which side is more profitable. Often, the side that is sensational, the underdog, is the more profitable side. Therefore, apart from Fox News, which is its own "special" entity, I believe that the American media sort of shifts from side to side. Political bisexuality, you could say.

[DukeLeto]

Eh, probably nerver, unless Bush declares himself dictator (which, mark my words, WILL HAPPEN if it looks like he'll lose the election).  In that case, it'll come down to how much FOX News can sugarcoat the situation, and how much bullcrap these idiots will buy into.