What is a "no more war asshole"?

[stone space]

And why do so-called Democrats use that epithet to describe us?

[Loki Liesmith]

1. Who's "us"?

[stone space]

3. Folks opposed to war. (nt)

[Loki Liesmith]

6. Oh. I don't think that quote refers to you

Just the clowns chanting into boom mikes.

[stone space]

12. If I had a boom mike, I'd scream it at the top of my lungs. (nt)

[Loki Liesmith]

13. I'm sure that would achieve all your goals

Sounds like a great plan.

[stone space]

14. Perhaps silence would be better? (nt)

[AgadorSparticus]

23. Pssst...the world is not binary. There are shades of grey.

[stone space]

25. I've ben told below that GOP delegates didn't voice any opposition to war at their convention.

That seems to me to be a huge difference between the Democratic Party and the GOP.

(Admittedly, I was out of the country at the time, so I am taking folks word for that here, but it does make me wonder why the perspectives of GOP delegates are being pushed here at DU over the perspectives of Democratic delegates when it comes to war. Should we not be able to express our own opinions, also, or must we all simply mimic the GOP delegates' opinions?)

[AgadorSparticus]

32. No. I absolutely believe we should be able to express our disagreements...

But there is a difference between expressing a concern and disrupting. It is never ok to me to interrupt and heckle someone when they are speaking. Never. Not only is it rude to the speaker, but it also is offensive to those trying to listen to the speech or enjoy the convention.

I'm sorry, but when people are disrupting it does nothing for their cause. In fact, I think it takes away whatever credibility they may have. Go protest outside. Go protest on the mall in Washington. Plan for it and make it big. And no one should disrupt the protest.

The only opposition I saw the GOP delegates try to make was to change the rules so that they didn't have to elect trump. And it looked like they got shut down pretty quick. I don't think they could protest. It would have been nice to see them protest outside.

[stone space]

33. It would have been good had GOP delegates voiced opposition to war.

It's good when we do it, too.

[blue neen]

115. But, it wasn't good when the protestors chanted last night.

It took the meaning of their cause away completely.

Everyone has a right to free speech and the courage of their convictions----those protestors chose the wrong time and place. Everyone last night was trying to unite our Democratic Party. It's imperative that we win this election because Donald Trump is a dangerous man who has the potential to get ALL of us into a war very quickly.

I'm sorry, but they just looked like they wanted attention. Another time and place, and they could have gotten a good point across.

Thanks for listening.

[DanM]

71. How have the shades of grey been doing for us?

Shades of grey sounds like a great plan.

[AgadorSparticus]

98. Was there an anti war march that I missed?

Was there an anti war sit in at the capitol?

Was there anything besides the boos and disruptive tactics here at the convention? If there was, then, I missed it. That is the shade of grey I am talking about. Not whether you are for or against it. Although, there are shades of grey in that too. I just don't see how being disruptive at a convention helps further the cause. The decisions to go to war don't hinge on speech disruptions. All I am saying is that it does nothing for the antiwar movement to be rude. Do a national march that shows the power in numbers instead.

[LanternWaste]

96. To what effective and precise end?

To what effective and precise end?

[MichiganVote]

2. Oh hell, some of those people are so out of touch with what's going on its pathetic.

[Hissyspit]

4. Amazing, isn't it?

[demmiblue]

5. People who don't want anymore wars are not assholes. Quite the opposite.

Sad to see that sentiment here.

[SammyWinstonJack]

15. +1000000! Sad but not surprising.

[bigwillq]

18. .....

[DetlefK]

68. Oh, they are most definitely assholes of the worst kind.

"No more war assholes" think that all the problems that are the fault of the US, e.g. destabilization of Iraq, will magically be solved once the US walks away and ignores the problems.

For example:
According to what they wrote here on DU, they think that bombing ISIS is wrong. The US destabilized Iraq and created ISIS and according to them, trying to stop ISIS from killing/torturing/raping will only make the situation worse.

The funny thing is, these "no more war assholes" adamantly refuse to respond when challenged to think about the consequences of their demands.

[tecelote]

84. No more war asshole here.

Use our military might to support and aid doctors, engineers and teachers. Rebuild the countries we toppled.

Win the hearts and minds of the citizens and we win the war.

We have to stop interfering with other countries governments. Saddam was bad and killed his own people so we decide to depose him and kill more people. We have to stop. IT HAS NOT WORKED!

Humanitarian aid backed by the mightiest military in the world.

The solution.

[DetlefK]

86. There are no words to describe how stupid your idea is.

How exactly would the US-military "support" the hundreds of doctors, engineers and teachers in a country rife with ethnic strife, civil-war and terrorism?
With boots-on-the-ground guarding them during work.

How would the US "rebuild countries" rife with ethnic strife, civil-war and terrorism?
With boots-on-the-ground guarding projects.

How would the US win hearts and minds by standing by while ISIS kills/rapes/tortures andsoforth?
It wouldn't. The US would get blamed for not helping.

How would "rebuilding a country" steer clear of interfering with foreign governments?
It wouldn't. It would need coordination with government and influence the social/economic/political situation on the ground.

[tecelote]

90. Can't be much more stupid than what we have tried and failed so far can it?

ISIS is thriving by your own account. Maybe when your stuck in a hole, digging deeper is not the answer. You have to change course and dig out.

When someone, or some country, kills your family, hate is natural. That's why we are creating more terrorists than we are killing.

The problem with my solution is that it does not include enough profit and it does not keep America scared (seems to be your job).

Shit. My insurance company offers terrorist insurance. Like I have the slightest chance of being attacked compared to a snake bite.

You're drunk on the Koolaid and furthering the moral and ethical decline of our citizens.

Wake up.

[DetlefK]

93. Your proposal is pretty much exactly what has been tried and failed.

It would be the occupation of Iraq all over again, except this time the occupation covers Iraq and Syria and this time the bad guys are ISIS.



Let's put some flesh to the bone:

Describe how a hypothetical scenario of your proposal would play out.

[tecelote]

95. You know about our occupation right?

My proposal is not to topple governments. It's to rebuild and get out.

Sorry if I'm not as versed in the specifics as much as you'd like. I'm not running for office. I'm giving you my opinion that anti-war assholes are far better than war mongers. It's that simple.

[DetlefK]

97. To repeat:

You cannot rebuild anything in Iraq/Syria without providing some bodyguards to the projects and the people doing the work. And by your own suggestion, those people would be US-soldiers.

[GeorgeGist]

110. Of course, the bull in the china shop ...

should clean up it's mess. How stupid to think otherwise.

[DetlefK]

111. Whom would you ask to clean up the mess the US made?

[BobbyDrake]

103. Yes, I'm sure "We're going to stand by and not prevent you from being killed" will win hearts.

Brilliant plan there, chief. What strain of weed can we thank for your inspiration there?

[ymetca]

126. Bombing anyone is wrong

.. that is kind of the point. But, hey

"Christians to the lions!"

[dflprincess]

7. There are those who consider war a business opportunity

we who object to it annoy them.

[mike_c]

8. that comment was utterly appalling....

WTF?

[runaway hero]

9. Apparently we have some neocons in the Democratic Party.

[NYC Liberal]

10. The asshole part is screaming it at Democratic speakers at our convention.

Not the sentiment of "no more war".

They are assholes.

Were they protesting the orange con man and the rest of the right-wingers?

[stone space]

11. There's nothing wrong with screaming "no more war" at any political convention.

Would that we were all such assholes, and all of the time.

[Skittles]

17. why don't they scream it at the repuke party?

in this context they are looking like fucking MORONS

[stone space]

19. Because they didn't get elected as delegates to the GOP convention?

You seem to be upset at the wrong people, here.

The folks who got elected as delegates to the Democratic convention are not the same folks who got elected as delegates to the GOP convention.

Which GOP candidate had antiwar delegates? I missed the convention. I was out of the country for the past month, and just got back yesterday. I missed it, so I'm not sure which GOP candidate's delegates you are referring to here.

A lot has happened since I left the country in late June, and I'm afraid that I missed it all.

Are you telling me that GOP delegates are not as anti-war as Democratic delegates?

And that this proves the superiority of GOP delegates over those moronic anti-war Democratic delegates?

[Skittles]

48. I MEAN EVER

[LeftyMom]

20. Because they weren't Republican delegates?

This really isn't complicated.

[Skittles]

49. I MEAN *EVER*

[LeftyMom]

50. And the basis of this assumption is what, exactly?

[Skittles]

53. LOL

done here, not worth my time

[pangaia]

76. But you see, it IS worth the time of the 'no more war assholes.'

That's the difference.

[ronnie624]

21. Because Democrats are about as likely to wage war as Republicans? n/t

[Skittles]

54. do you really think

if 9/11 had happened under a Dem prez they would have started wars in Afghanistan and Iraq?

[Lancero]

56. I doubt that many here question the Afganistan War.

We did have grounds for that.

The Iraq war, well... Their are reasons that many refer to that one as a mistake and why many who voted for it in the past now regret it.

Afganistan would have happened either way, though Iraq would have had a chance of not happening.

[Skittles]

125. both were wars of choice

http://fff.org/explore-freedom/article/united-states-invade-afghanistan/

[nationalize the fed]

57. WTF is Biden talking about here?

You'd think that more people would care about these statements. But they don't. They "Trust" the politicians that spout them out of their mouths.

[Warren DeMontague]

65. That whole ... theory or whatever it is, the paranoia around those three words- is inane.

Sorry, but it is. There's no other way to put it. There's no fucking magic spooky illuminati mojo around the words "new world order". It's not like saying Voldemort.

Rather, it's been a logical term to use in conversations about geopolitics, particularly in the window of time when the cold war was ending and the old "world order" which had held tenuously stable through the dangerous threat of mutual assured destruction since the end of WWII, was ending due to the fall of communism.

OH MY GOD! THEY SAID NEW WORLD ORDER! BOHEMIAN GROVE BABY-EATING ILLUMINATI CONFIRMED!

Derp.

Don't you think that if they REALLY were really all in on a "New World Order" plan that was some spooky conspiracy, they wouldn't keep calling it that? Don't you think they would come up with a more creative name, at least? Something not so damn obvious or easy to put in a sentence by accident by someone not "in the know"?

Like I said. Inane. It's as if someone decided "my fellow Americans" was some code by the international Nickelback conspiracy to make everyone listen to Nickelback.

YOU LAUGH, BUT EVERY TIME A POLITICIAN OPENS THEIR MOUTH THEY SAY "MY FELLOW AMERICANS!"



RUN FOR THE HILLS!

[ymetca]

127. No it's "run for Mars" now, dude

Clearly you are not getting your Bob newsletter anymore, you transhumanist slacker!

[Warren DeMontague]

128. PAY NO ATTENTION TO THE SHAMBLING MOUND BEHIND THE CURTAIN

[DanM]

73. do you really think under a Dem prez no war wouldn't have started anywhere?

if so, you lack realism on how hawkish some Dem politicians are, or how some others can't resist caving to populist war-lust after attacks on us by foreigners.

[Demsrule86]

85. The Democrats did not start any of the wars.

But what now? Do we abandon the middle easts to Isis or some other radical group? How do we walk away without millions dying there because of George Bush's interference? The entire region is destabilized. It is very difficult to stop wars once they start...and please take a moment to review the video footage of what happened in Vietnam after we left. Millions died, and it was completely our fault. What about those who have helped us in Iraq or Afghanistan-what will happen to them? It is easy to chant meaningless drivel but coming up with a plan...well that is a bit more difficult. Consider that Bill Clinton handled the Ukraine without war and did not invade any country. I think we can expect much the same from Hillary who is not a war hawk despite slander hurled at her. And I don't see how one vote makes Hillary a war monger especially when Kerry and a host of other liberals voted the same way and never had to account for their vote. I think it amounts to an excuse for those who hate Hillary because their candidate lost or who fell right wing propaganda.

[ronnie624]

109. Intervention in the ME began long before ISIS and George Bush.

The Western approach has not produced a positive result yet. But why would it? It is completely self-serving. Waging war, supporting radical elements (whichever happens to be most useful at a given time), displacing millions of people and causing general chaos, actually makes ISIS possible. If it wasn't ISIS, it would be called something else, and we would still be taking a sledgehammer to vulnerable societies and creating the conditions most conducive to religious and political extremism. It's time to re-examine our motives in the ME.

[Glassunion]

112. Actually Democrats did indeed start any of these wars.

The Iraq Resolution (Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002) was affirmatively voted for by 82 democrats in the house, and 29 in the senate. If they had voted no, then the resolution would not have passed.

We need to accept our culpability in the current state of the Middle East, and work to undo the damage we have caused.

[stranger81]

16. It's a whole new DU.

Third Way or the highway.

[Grey Lemercier]

24. Moderate, centrist Democrats (Bill Clinton, Pres Obama, soon Hillary) WIN elections

and govern well. The farther left, the non realists (IMHO), never even get close. I am by temperament, philosophy, and practice a moderate centrist, and I am glad my archetype wins out. I realise many on here are not in agreement with me, but frankly, in the real world, they are dwarfed in numbers by the political centre left, moderates and indies' size.

[stone space]

34. "No more war assholes" may not be a majority, but it's good for our voices to be heard. (nt)

[Grey Lemercier]

35. I never called anyone a no more war asshole

[stone space]

36. Oh, I know. Just sticking with the earlier terminology.

Not trying to put that one on you, personally.

[Cobalt Violet]

47. really? Is that why under the centrists we now have a REpuke house and senate?

[Grey Lemercier]

59. Presidents. House and Senate candidates obviously have to be tailored to the state and district.

but you knew that


The national electorate does not have a far left tilt. The last real left wing liberal elected was FDR.

on edit

do not want to argue over LBJ

[pangaia]

79. " House and Senate candidates obviously have to be tailored to the state and district."

No, states and districts have been tailored to the House and Senate.

[PassingFair]

116. Moderate, centrist Democrats (Bill Clinton, Pres Obama, soon Hillary) WIN elections

And then they pass shit like NAFTA

[Grey Lemercier]

117. I am not in favour of TTIP and TPP as currently written

Neither is Sec Clinton. I am in favour of free trade as long as it has fair trade protections.

[PassingFair]

118. Why do you think she is against it now?

Answer: Pressure from the "left".

[Grey Lemercier]

119. I am pragmatic. I prefer centrists who are moderated by the left

much more than far left moderated by centrists.

[PassingFair]

120. To each his own.

Personally, I'll take an FDR over a Clinton.

[Grey Lemercier]

121. FDR was a pragmatist in many ways.

[pinboy3niner]

22. There are "no more war assholes"?

Count me in! (From an American Purple Heart combat veteran.)

[Victor_c3]

94. I'll stand there with you!

I haven't experienced what weapons do to my own body, but I've seen firsthand what it does to others.

My experience has been that anyone who is frothing at the mouth for a war has never really experienced it as up close and personally as an infantryman has.

I'm not going to say that there never has been or never will be a just war - but most wars certainly aren't that. The song Black Sabbath song "War Pigs" comes to mind.

[Rex]

129. Warmongers are shitty people.

They get innocent people killed and always pass the buck.

[Warpy]

26. Yeah, we used to be Peace Creeps in a kinder age

War is ruinous to the nation and it's time to get more No More War Assholes into power.

[pinboy3niner]

30. And Pinkos

Even if you wore your combat decorations.

[malaise]

81. +1,000

I don't get it

[emulatorloo]

27. Try not to confuse the reaction of a few people with the Majority DU viewpoint

[pkdu]

28. I think you self-answered the question didnt you?

..Oh , and why didn't the brave assholes try that shot when the President was speaking if they feel so strongly ? The people they were interrupting worked for President Obama.

[stone space]

31. I don't think I've answered it, but I'll wear the label proudly, if necessary.

[avaistheone1]

29. War bankrupts us. Emotionally and financally.

[pinboy3niner]

37. And for too many of us, physically and mentally

We need to remember the troops and vets who bear the most direct costs. And too many Gold Star families.

[avaistheone1]

38. Definitely and their families too.

Did you see this tragic story about one of our soldiers today? It's stunning.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1179&pid=6768

[pinboy3niner]

43. Yes, I saw yui's post--and I've also lost friends that way, including my best friend

"There, but for the Grace of God..." I had my own close calls, but somehow I survived. So I know intimately how that feels and why it happens.

Veterans today are taking a pledge. That when things get bad, they will not act before contacting a buddy or sister vet. I recently took that pledge.

[avaistheone1]

46. I knew the VA was not up to snuff for out vets on many things...but I didn't think they

would be so bad, and so cold to vets' mental health needs.

Good for you pinboy. Good buddies will always have your back.

Nice talking with you.

Good night.

[pinboy3niner]

52. VA health care overall is EXCELLENT!

Veterans constantly attest to that, which is why Repubican efforts to privatize veterans' care have failed.

Most problems are with the administration of the system, especially in processing claims. Incidents like the one yui posted about are not the norm, but in such a vast system gross fuckups do happen and get attention.

Replacing the VA with private health care for vets, as Trump wants, would be TERRIBLE for vets!

[A HERETIC I AM]

39. Hey man....

Is the smoke from the Santa Clarita fire blowing up to the valley? Or is it headed the other way?

I was out there once a week for the better part of the last 2 months, but the driver I was replacing is now back on the job.

So...I won't be back out your way for a while and was wondering how that fire was affecting the Antelope Valley, if at all.

All the best, and stay safe.


Paul

[pinboy3niner]

44. We got a lot of smoke in the AV for a couple days

It was so bad that I avoided going out.

A friend drove her horse trailer out to rescue some of the horses there. She normally does mustang rescue, but when this started she rushed out to help the Sand Fire evacuees and and guest-board their horses. No charge. And that's how she referred to the horses--as her guests.

It may be a red area of California, but as you know we have a lot of good people here.

[A HERETIC I AM]

51. Indeed

I trust you recall I mentioned my residence in Palmdale from late '01 through '04. I drove the 14 freeway many, many times up from Santa Clarita/I 5. There are certainly scores of properties in that lower portion of the 14 corridor that have horses. It's good to hear the helping hands are at work.

An unsettling situation, at least. A terrifying one at most.

[pinboy3niner]

55. I remember that about you. I arrived here in 2000.

The high desert would not have been my choice of a place to go. I prefer green, and trees, even the jungle from my war. But I have a brother here, so...here I am. And now my brother and I are the last of our family.

I've made a lot of friends here--Democrats and Republicans, Liberals and conservatives. We work together on veteran and community projects and politics rarely comes up (though some consider me their 'token Liberal', lol).

My conservative friends know I've gone down to L.A. for Occupy actions and other progressive protests. No problem besides a little good-natured ribbing both ways.

[merrily]

41. +1

[merrily]

40. This is new to me. And very serious to me.

[stone space]

42. I've come to the conclusion that this is just a simple case of out-and-out trolling.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12512313712

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10028055497

[merrily]

45. Is DU the only place you've seen the term?

[stone space]

100. I don't post in many online forums.

In the real world, I'm more used to simply being arrested for expressing my anti-war views without all the vitriol that one encounters online.

[merrily]

101. Thank you. That is so much more effective than fighting the online war,

though, of course, harder on you.

If there is an organization you favor for fighting the war on wars, please DU mail me its name.

I would really appreciate it.

[Warren DeMontague]

58. It's okay to be against war. I'm against war.

Loudly heckling and shouting over the speakers at our convention this week, on the other hand, is what makes one an asshole.

[pinboy3niner]

60. Forget the chaff, enjoy the wheat

Focusing on protests only detracts from what is a GREAT convention, and especilally a great night tonight. The speeches were fantastic, capped by a briliant speech by President Obama.

[Warren DeMontague]

63. You said it, man.

I was really, really blown away. Especially by The President. That was a simply incredible speech.

[The Second Stone]

61. I think you answered your own question. It is an epithet that

some people have used to describe "us". Perhaps you should name them and thus shame them and they might stop it, or at least the rest of the world would know who they are and what you are talking about.

[Cobalt Violet]

62. I'd much rather be a "no more war asshole" than a more war asshole.

I don't know why any More War Asshole would be sitting around their mom's basement typing away on DU vs out fighting the wars they monger for. Like war hawks everywhere they always want someone else to do the fighting and dying for them.

[anoNY42]

64. Those "so-called Dems"

must be pro-war...

[malaise]

66. Because you don't own the party

Last edited Thu Jul 28, 2016, 08:55 AM - Edit history (1)

and your opinion isn't the only one - no more war means exactly what it says.

Pause and go figure how long we've been bombing people's countries for our interests.

Sorry - missed the context of your OP

[Bluenorthwest]

91. The OP is anti war and is speaking of a post that referred to peace seekers as 'no more war

assholes'. He is not name calling, but being name called.

[malaise]

92. My bad n/t

[DetlefK]

67. I can explain. I have met a bunch of those on DU.

"No more war assholes" have the opinion that conflicts can be solved by walking away and ignoring them.

Example:
There will be peace in the Middle-East as soon as the US stops bombing ISIS. Just walk away and the problem is solved.

[hobbit709]

69. But keeping on bombing civilians will not fix the problem either.

In case you forgot, that's how this mess got started.

[DetlefK]

70. Saying that my answer is wrong does not make your answer any right.

What are the consequences of your demand?

Please describe a hypothetical Middle-East in the near future where the US stopped bombing ISIS.

[hobbit709]

74. That works both ways.

[DetlefK]

78. Yes, but we already know the consequences of my demand.

How about you describe the consequences of your demand and then we compare which one is the better solution?

[nationalize the fed]

75. Speaking of consequences...

What do you think this accomplished?

Pentagon: Investigation into Syria airstrike that killed civilians ongoing



WASHINGTON — U.S. Central Command is proceeding with a formal investigation into an airstrike in Syria last week that reportedly killed scores of civilians, a U.S. official based in Baghdad said Wednesday.

Following an initial assessment by the military of the airstrike, which took place July 19 near the city of Manbij, a more extensive investigation has begun, said Col. Chris Garver, the spokesman for Operation Inherent Resolve.

“Based on internal and external information that we have – things that we saw during the fight and things we saw in social media,” Central Command determined “the information was credible enough to warrant a formal investigation,” Garver told reporters at the Pentagon...
http://www.stripes.com/news/pentagon-investigation-into-syria-airstrike-that-killed-civilians-ongoing-1.421200

If you saw your parents literally blown apart in front of you by a drone bomb, how do you think you'd feel, and what do you think you would do?

[anoNY42]

77. You can clearly see

the words "Ahmed + ISIS 4ever" carved into those olive trees inside of a drawing of a heart...

[DetlefK]

82. Please don't try to switch topics and instead answer my question.

We already know what the outcome of "bombing ISIS" is. It has been over all the newspapers everywhere for the last 10 years.

How about you tell me more about the outcome of "not bombing ISIS", so we can compare which proposal is better and which is worse?

[anoNY42]

105. The outcome of "not bombing ISIS"

No one really knows, since it has not been attempted. If we (America) were to stop bombing ISIS, perhaps others would start doing so, or perhaps not. It would save us some cash, that is for sure, at least on bombs and jet fuel.

As you say, we tried bombing ISIS and we see where it gets us. Why not now try "not bombing" ISIS and see where that gets us?

If you truly believe we have to "do something" because ISIS is bad, why do we not have the same obligation for other groups around the world who are bad? Hell, North Korea is an entire, actual country where the government has enslaved its own people, the government explicitly wishes us harm, AND they have the means to harm us! Why not bomb them before they bomb us, same as ISIS?

[DetlefK]

113. Au contraire. "Not bombing ISIS" has been attempted. January to September of 2014.

You can read up on what happened back then.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_State_of_Iraq_and_the_Levant

[anoNY42]

114. I don't understand why you think the bombing is working.

ISIS came from other terrorist groups, of course we have been bombing those groups all along. The groups names have changed frequently over time, according to you Wiki source.

This is the funny part: we have even had troops on the ground, thousands of them, during that time. And yet ISIS still exists today in its current form.

ISIS did not just "pop up" on 01/01/2014, begging to be bombed (with us supposedly looking the other way). The ideas and people existed previously, even at times when we were in fact bombing them.

The bombs and jet fuel are a waste of our tax dollars. Military might cannot stop an idea. We have killed scores of "#2 men", but there are always others moving up to take the "#2" spot. The more muslims we kill, the more we are hated by previously moderate muslims.

[Odin2005]

87. The "Hate-America-First" people.

[DetlefK]

89. They exist too, but they have been around on DU since George W. Bush.

The anti-Bush hysteria sometimes got weird. He got personally blamed for things that are simply systemic problems of US-society and and US-politics as a whole.


The "no war assholes" are pretty new.

[randome]

72. Someone who in effect is saying that bad things are bad.

[hr][font color="blue"][center]Never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font][hr]

[ecstatic]

80. Context matters. I think most people here are against war.

And most of us here want democrats to win in November, which makes us a little touchy when protesters are shouting down our convention speakers.

[Starry Messenger]

83. Members of the CA delegation at the DNC who are having a tantrum.

[Odin2005]

88. Because being a crude heckler makes you an asshole and doesn't change people's minds?

[ismnotwasm]

99. I appauld the sentiment

Last edited Thu Jul 28, 2016, 06:00 PM - Edit history (3)

But as they say, doubt the veracity.

Chanting "No more war', is of course laudable. I will even give the benefit of the doubt that the protesters didn't come up with that particular chant to garner sympathy and not look as bad as they did when booing civil rights icons.

It's hard though. I get the impression the protesters just want to make noise, and came up with the one chant that they thought would give them a pass on their General assholery.

Is there a new war in the offing? Or is it, you know--an all purpose chant about war?

[actslikeacarrot]

102. DU was the first place I ever heard the term "chickenhawk"....

....back when I was just a lurker, so around late 2002, early 2003 timeframe. I took it to mean anyone who supports a military action but doesn't want to serve themselves. Do we now have "chickenhawks" on DU?

[BobbyDrake]

104. If someone makes a generalization and you think it applies to you, that's on you.

No one forced you to say "Hey, that's me!" when you heard someone say "no more war asshole."

[raccoon]

107. Would those who deride "no more war assholes" be willing for their kids to be drafted?

Is there an emoticon for crickets?

[Nevernose]

108. I prefer "No More War, Assholes"

To the No More War Assholes.

But that's just me. I'm sure a few hundred more cruise missiles launched at civilian areas in third world shit holes will make the world a better place any day now...

[Donald Ian Rankin]

122. Anyone who believes that all wars are wrong, as opposed to most.

I'm Jewish; I wouldn't be here if not for WWII. *Most* wars are not worth fighting, but absolutist pacifism is not a position I respect.

[LanternWaste]

123. I'd imagine it refers to someone who criticizes a problem, yet offers no solution...

I'd imagine it refers to someone who righteously and passionately criticizes a problem we all see as such, yet offers no practical solution, regardless of the pretense that requiring a solution labels one as a "so-called" Democrat.

[Initech]

124. We've been at war since the fucking 80's. Isn't it time to end this madness?