Does protesting in the streets ever work?

Does doing mass protest ever work?

On local issues I can see it working. Ie protesting against your local council or your workplace.

But on huge issue like war. Vietnam war you have demostrations after demonstations. Did that stop the war? The US only stopped when they lost the war. The iraq war protest didn't stop the war. In UK the mass protest against the ban on fox hunting didnt change anything.

Live 8 is a mass demostration by itself against the G8 summit. Does it do anything?

NO

Other than make you all look like whiney retards?  No.

live8 is a fucking concert that does squat to help afrika
why the hell are people partying to help starving people
WTF IS WRONG WITH THIS WORLD

Mass protests are cool when they can be turned into full scale riots.

Damn hippies, gb2/your house in a tree and have more LSD before trying to steal our money. Seriously, I'm sorry if people doesn't know how to do stuff and loses somewhere else, but the money I honestly earnt is for my pleasure. And if I find it my pleasure to help others I will, but you can't force me to, otherwise you'd be a dictator just as bad as the ones leading African countries.

I live in Myanmar where every fucking person can tell you about someone they lost in 1988 protests.

The moral: Mass protests in a democracy are annoying. Mass protests under a dictatorship are blood baths.

Oh yeah, and partying to help starving people is retarded 

Mass Protest are just the easy way to get someone's opinion heard instead of the PROPER channels. Anyone can do it. Like the ban against fox hunting. The majority supported but a minority wouldn't budge. So the minority decide to make as much noise as they can.

Protest does work though. Look at India's independence with Gandhi's silent protest. Or Martin Luther King's silent march. But their causes were local and were about outright wrongs. Hippie's really spoilt the integrity of what a protest is suppose to be with partying and drugs added to it and on protesting on EVERY little issue that they feel strong about.

>>7
Well that why under a dictatorship, protest are not enought. You need a revolution. Russia did it. America did it. Though in this day of age its harder because of advancements in weapons.

>>9
Revolutions are a faggy way to end up something bad and get into something worse.

More like peaceful transition to democracy, like Spain had.

That was just because Franco was feeling generous when he kicked the bucket.

I completely agree with the sentiment though. Revolutions are a good way to kill people and destroy infrastructure.

The media doesn't like protests, they find the nuttiest protestors and only show them, then they use them to smear the whole movement. Rioting is more effective, as it shocks the population more. Strategic riots are the way to go, and fun. I'd join the black bloc but I'm a pussy. The next step is revolution, but most people are too big of pussy's like me to make it work.

>>12
No idiot, it's violence is funny that the media only shows the brick throwers. 

when ever street protest are looking like they are having a effect the media down plays what's going on.

>>6
>if people doesn't know
Thank you american blind half consciously complacent sheep ass nigger, do leave these boards lest I stab you.
>>11
You're assuming that those who die in are actually people and not dogs, and that the infrastructure is not a corrupt nation destroying entity. You're assuming a hell of a lot.
>>14
Because more than likely, the very thing that is being protested has a huge hand in the control of the media, why else would they spin the shit? Of course, this is justice right? This is a nation right? Of course, believe it, believe everything they tell you and every edited clip you see on the tv or internet video, believe the lies.

piss and moan. Even a paranoid doesn't think everyone is out to get them.

Shooting politicians works. Lift gun bans.

Protests are what kept America from nuking Vietnam.  The strong public outcry persuaded the government against taking drastic measures during that war, and it can do that same for anything else.

>>18
Nixon was practically a lame duck during Watergate. What kept him from nuking Vietnam then?

>>19
USSR

>>19
They didn't need to nuke Vietnam, just carpet bomb North Vietnam until they surrendered. American traitors prevented the US from doing this and the blood of 50000 American soldiers and the freedom of Vietnam was the cost.

>>22
>American traitors

Oh please. Maybe I should call you a traitor to the human race?

It has to be on an absolutely massive scale to work. That's why the Iraq war ones don't do anything; they aren't big enough and most of the people in them are tinfoil retards anyway.

What you need are sustained, coherent nonviolent protests on a big scale, just like during the civil rights era. These work because they are a political force that politicians can;t dismiss out of hand; when they become violent, politicians can write off the protestors as whackjobs to the rest of the population, and it hurts the movement.

>>23
It was a clear choice between defending south Vietnam or losing 50000 American lives and watching Vietnam fall to a totalitarian regime. You choose the latter and thus you are all traitors. I'm not judging, I'm just saying.

>>24
The protests achieved little, it was proper democratic lobbying and petitioning on the local government scale that achieved it. Evolution wins over revolution once again.