Why is it OK on DU to say you will stand behind the enemy if we go to war

[SensibleAmerican]

Apparently, it is perfectly OK to say you will back Iran and Venezuela if we go to war against them, but to call that treason is apparently a big no-no.

Those that say they will back Venezuela or Iran in a time of war are not pacifists. They are proponents of war, except they're for the other side.

The main reason the government can get some of America to support covert surveillance of political groups, IMHO, is because of horseshit like this. I will guarantee that 95% of DU will never support Iran in time of war. But the 5% that say they will give the neoconservatives the bait they need to persecute those who oppose them. Meanwhile, that 5% doesn't give a rat's ass who the enemy kills, be it innocent civillians or our soldiers. For anybody that says they will back Iran, remember their president is the idiot who said he wanted to wipe Israel off the map and he wanted to draw funny cartoons about the Holocaust. For anybody that say they will back Venezuela, note that this guy wants a 100-year war with the US.

There is a big difference in saying you oppose war, which I would say that 99% of DUers do, and saying that you will back an enemy in time of war. Such an attitude should be exterminated from within our party.

[niyad]

1. what are you talking about? I haven't seen any such comments here

on DU. And it isn't like the thugs of the current maladministration need an excuse for spying the way they do.

by the way, it's late, and I'm tired, or I would have asked you at once to provide links for the remarks to which you are supposedly referring.

[izzie]

46. Besides that it is getting hard to figure out who is the enemy

With 900 bases around the world I guess if you do not have one your an enemy, Right?

[Selatius]

2. Who said Chavez wants a Hundred Years' War with the US?

If we attack Chavez, it won't be Chavez we're going to be fighting. We're going to be fighting Venezuela's majority poor, who put him in power in the first place. We are going to be fighting in jungle country, the kind of country that can inflict horrendous casualties on any would-be occupier. Just ask Viet Nam vets about what a peasant army protected by jungle canopy and a sympathetic population can do to an invading army.

Beside, I've never seen anybody here who would actually "back" the Iranian dictatorship. The only people worth feeling sorry over if there is a war with Iran is the American people and the Iranian citizens who will die in the war, not the government that oppresses the Iranians.

[SensibleAmerican]

6. Chavez said it in 2004

http://realhistoryarchives.blogspot.com/2004/03/chavez-threatens-100-year-war-kennedy.html

There is no dispute that the US invading countries is a bad idea. However, Chavez is baiting America to invade him so he gets his war.

[rman]

10. How is Chavez baiting America to invade Venezuela?

[last1standing]

11. Bush and the CIA back a corporatist coup against Chavez....

and yet Chavez is baiting America. It must be nice to have such a rosy picture of US policy.

[Selatius]

17. Umm, reread what you quoted to me again

"Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez today threatened the USA with a "100-year war" if the US ever tried to invade Venezuela."

Venezuela, as a nation, couldn't wage an offensive war like the US could wage an offensive war, but it most certainly can give you a defensive guerrilla war you've not seen since Viet Nam if you try to occupy their country, especially with all the jungle canopy that they can hide among.

If we look at the historic reference Chavez uses, we see that basically it was a struggle of French landowners and nobility against the English who at one point controlled more land in France than the French did. It was a struggle of the French trying to evict the English off their land. The Hundred Years' War reference, to me, implies a struggle of national liberation if Venezuela ever finds itself occupied, a struggle where the Venezuelans, not the French, fight to evict Americans, not the English, from their homeland.

[Downtown Hound]

43. Sorry, but Chavez promising a hundred year war

if the U.S. invades his country is a far cry from "wanting" a war with the United States. He's merely threatening a tough and vigorous fight if the U.S. invades his country. So the solution seems simple. How about, WE DON"T INVADE VENEZUELA! Then there won't be a hundred years war. To say Chavez is baiting the U.S. is a bunch of crap. The U.S. already participated in a coup against him, which was illegal and undemocratic. Chavez has every right to be pissed at us. If anything, it's the U.S. that is baiting Chavez, with our constant threats against him, calling him a dictator even though he was democratically elected (unlike Bush, both in 2000 and in 2004), attempting to overthrow him, ect. ect.

You'll find very few DU'ers that would activley aid the enemy of the United States in a time of war. However, you'll find plenty of us that are simply fed up with our government starting wars all over the globe against people that are no threat to us and then expecting us to foot the bill and die for them. Basically what we're saying is, "You wanna go off to all corners of the planet and start shooting at people? You're on your own, we don't got your back. So fuck off and let us live in peace!"

Oh, and on edit: I've seen enough of your posts now to really make me think you have a hidden agenda, and I really don't think it's the welfare of DU.

[BooScout]

3. Who has said that?

I have never seen anyone here say they would back Iran or Venezuela. People here are advocates of peace. I won't stand in support of the US in a war with Iran, and neither would I stand as a supporter of Iran. Are you trying the old 'you're either with us or against us' argument? Iran is not my enemy....but neither are they my friend.

[SensibleAmerican]

9. Link in post #8

n/t

[0007]

4. Argh!

[donheld]

5. Link(s) please

I think you're full of it. Who said any such thing?

[SensibleAmerican]

8. Here

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=1765537&mesg_id=1765689

[last1standing]

14. So two people say they support Iran and Chavez against the US.

That's all of DU?

You need to get a better sense of proportion.

[SensibleAmerican]

16. I said this was a fringe opinion

However, it's a fringe opinion that is very detrimental IMO.

[last1standing]

20. No you didn't.

I've just reread your OP and in no place did you call it a fringe opinion at DU. You're title and everything you claimed in your post implies or states that DU accepts and supports those who would fight against the US.

Some would call that a lie. I call it an obvious mistatement.

[SensibleAmerican]

21. Yes I did

I will guarantee that 95% of DU will never support Iran in time of war.

[last1standing]

24. Let's just look at your title....

and the statements after. You say straight out that DU is cool with treason - just because a couple of idiots (literally two) made simplistice posts.

I'm calling BULLSHIT!

[Nicole]

23. The sub-thread was deleted

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=1765537&mesg_id=1767787

Who knows how many others agreed?

[last1standing]

25. And who knows how many didn't?

Your post doesn't really change the fact that we can only see that two people here are morons.

[Nicole]

34. That wasn't my question

Maybe because it's late I just didn't phrase that right. It was a legitimate question though.


"Who knows how many others agreed?" meant who here knows how many others agreed?. Who being a specific person who could clue me in.
Since I didn't see the deleted sub-thread I honestly wanted to know if others agreed. I didn't mean who knows as in how many.

I wasn't trying to change facts. :shrug:

[last1standing]

37. Then we can agree it was poorly phrased.

It sounded like you were implying that several other must have agreed with the idea of supporting Iraq or Venezuela in a war against the US. It quite well have been the same two people arguing with the vast majority of people in that thread. Based on experience here, I'd even say its probable.

But I can accept that you were looking for someone who specifically had an answer to "who" and "how many".

peace.

[Rex]

22. Oh one person says it and you want a mandate?

What is it with people and mandates lately? Why don't you PM them and maybe preach the evils of their ways.

[muriel_volestrangler]

47. That says "if bushco attacks iran"

Yes, it is acceptable to say that if your president launches an illegal war, you will stand on the side of legality. It's the same as soldiers who are expected to disobey illegal orders.

[last1standing]

7. Why is it okay to spread bullshit propaganda about Democrats...

and Progressives? You're taking a most one or two DUers and extrapolating that into a majority here. You're way out of line in my opinion.

But it was very fair of you to post this in the middle of the night when it'll stay up on the main page longer. :sarcasm:

[xultar]

12. Because DU is Rapture Ready....?

WTF are you talking about?

[Rex]

19. He's talking about Some People on DU.

Are you one of the __________?

Do you support our country in a time of war, I think is the question? Aardvarks rampage downtown?

[niyad]

13. let's see, you have been here a month, and have nearly 400 posts, and

you claim to have seen things here that long-time posters haven't? hmmmmmmmmm.

oh, by the way, it might help if you learned the definition of pacifist:

pac·i·fism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (ps-fzm)
n.
The belief that disputes between nations should and can be settled peacefully.

Opposition to war or violence as a means of resolving disputes.
Such opposition demonstrated by refusal to participate in military action.

[orleans]

15. is this a trick question?

or is it multiple choice?

[xchrom]

18. bwahahahahha! you must have a million of 'em?

[A-Schwarzenegger]

26. Hysterical goofball post.

[rman]

27. ANYONE can post messages on DU - DU is not de Democratic party.

What reason is there to think the 1% you mention in your OP is part of the Democratic party?

[Demit]

28. Your use of bogus percent numbers is silly. Discredits you right away.

Your thread title is argumentative. I think you have an agenda.

[Selatius]

29. 5 percent of DU is a lot of people. That's easily several thousand

There are tens of thousands of DUers registered here.

Do you recommend a purge?

[last1standing]

30. Looks like a hit and run post.

Now that the OP has been challenged the poster is nowhere to be found. How unusual.

[Rex]

31. They fell off that high rooftop.

Probably trying to find the latter.

[last1standing]

32. Not all that "sensible" after all.

huh.

[Rex]

33. Indeed!

That gave me a laugh.

Oh and I expect this thread to become hugh! 200 at least! :rofl:

[Kailassa]

45. Not a hit and run post, a Shit and Run post.

He's dropped his steamy little turd, hoping to make trouble, and run like the gutless moran he is.

[Nicole]

36. Good point

Surely they can't believe that two speak for several thousand.

[cassiepriam]

35. I am totally against the US's murder, rape and torture

of innocent men, women and children. The invasion
of an innocent people's homeland, the destruction of their
country.

You will never exterminate me. I will never ever change
my mind on this. Ever. My conscience is on the side of the victims.

[Ghost Dog]

38. Problem is, support for your country at war is what Bush/Blairco

are relying on to see them through. Including, in Shrub's case, through the November elections, I reckon.

And, I believe we should take into account the factor that it is some powerful elements in the US & UK that appear to be looking for war, provoking war, and have indeed illegally invaded and occupied a country (Iraq) recently.

edit to add: "some powerful elements in"

[TreasonousBastard]

39. Kindly define "enemy" and explain....

precisely why we should blindly support any administration that decides to go to war, even for the flimsiest of purposes.

[Moochy]

40. Back away from the crack pipe

[chiffon]

41. too funny!!!

[Kailassa]

42. If your son wants to murder your neighbours, does family loyalty

mean you have to help him do it?

Or would you look at the facts, and try to talk him out of it?

My kids have always known that if they broke a law without good reason, I'd be the first to dob them in to the cops. Loyalty to them means wanting them to be the best people they can be, and make good use of their lives.

Loyalty to a drunken friend means preventing him from driving while inebriated.

Loyalty to a country that's being driven by drunks means trying to prevent them driving it into brick walls.

If you interpret that as treason, and use it to justify the cabal conducting covert suveillance on DUers, that'syour problem.

[madokie]

44. Our enemies are the BFEE not the Venezuelains, Iranians or the Syrians

and the people here who can't see through the smokescreen.

[iconoclastic cat]

48. Thanks for trolling.

now go away.

[norml]

49. "We have met the enemy and he is us."

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22we+have+met+the+enemy+and+he+is+us%22&btnG=Google+Search

[maddezmom]

50. locking

flamebait