• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Top General: Murtha Comments Hurt Morale

cnredd said:
So your not going to answer it...Ok...:shrug:

When you pose a real question instead of rhetorical, eye rolling, pseudo-intellectual bullying, I will be more than happy to answer you. :2wave:
 
KidRocks said:
Ya right, that statement from one shamless hypocrite to comfort another.

Yet you both disdain highly-decorated Americans, you both disdain our brave troops, men and women, here, and in Iraq and you still don't realize your hypocrisy. And your hatred of our men and women is all politically-motivated of course. It's because they dare speak-out against the war, because they dare oppose President Bush that you hate these fine Americans.

I know your kind, you call yourselves, "patriots", I like to refer to you people as hypocrite-Americans, shamless-Americans, not true Americans!

You're just a child, what on earth do you know about anything?

I usually don't go there, as far as age, but you have shown yourself to be a parrot for the left, and one who knows nothing about what you regurgitate. Get some experience under your belt, then come back and tell us all about honor, patriotism, and the like.:roll:
 
Why is it that Murtha's comments were praised by many with his dissenting view points, but when Pace has a dissenting and divergent view point it is attacked as being partisan?
 
SixStringHero said:
Why is it that Murtha's comments were praised by many with his dissenting view points, but when Pace has a dissenting and divergent view point it is attacked as being partisan?

Excellent question, but I think we all know the mantra, "Bush pulls all the military strings" well......except for those who disagree.:doh
 
Pace mentioned he recently returned from Iraq and found good troop morale and a "quiet confidence" that U.S. efforts were on the right track, AP reported.


Hmm, according to the General, the troop morale was good on a recent Iraq trip. No hurt morale there.


The Army missed its fiscal 2005 recruiting goal

Let's see, Murtha's call for re-deployment was November 17, 2005. So his statements were responsible for poor recruitment retroactive for the whole year?
 
SixStringHero said:
Why is it that Murtha's comments were praised by many with his dissenting view points, but when Pace has a dissenting and divergent view point it is attacked as being partisan?
It's simple...

Double standards are considered legitimate to some...

Haven't you read the Liberal handbook yet?

Rule #2 - I have a legal right to say whatever I want....so shut up!..

:shrug:
 
Murtha appeared at a forum in Arlington, Va at the invitation of its sponsor, Rep. James P. Moran Jr. (D-Va.), whose own Iraq views have caused him trouble in the past. As described by the WP:

"In an emotional two-hour public forum in Arlington last night on the Iraq war, one of the Bush administration's chief critics, Rep. John P. Murtha (D-Pa.), renewed his call for an immediate pullout, saying, "We've become the enemy."
<...>
Before a crowd of about 600 people that spilled out of the auditorium and into an overflow room and the street, Murtha accused the Pentagon of ignoring a drop in recruitment levels and tolerating such problems in Iraq as low morale and shortages of body armor and other equipment.

"Instead of taking on the real problems, they face it with rhetoric," he said. " 'Murtha's hurting recruiting,' " the congressman said. "They say, 'You're hurting the effort and hurting the troops.' That's what so frustrating to me."


A local vet also made an appearance and angrily confronted Murtha. The Post offered only a partial quote and minimized the vet's comments, but video of the event is available on CSPAN - and watching it reveals a much more interesting exchange. Sgt Seavey is the first man at the mike, at approximately the 34:30 point in the video:

"Yes sir my name is Mark Seavey and I just want to thank you for coming up here. Until about a month ago I was Sgt Mark Seavey infantry squad leader, I returned from Afghanistan. My question to you, (applause)

"Like yourself I dropped out of college two years ago to volunteer to go to Afghanistan, and I went and I came back. If I didn't have a herniated disk now I would volunteer to go to Iraq in a second with my troops, three of which have already volunteered to go to Iraq. I keep hearing you say how you talk to the troops and the troops are demoralized, and I really resent that characterization. (applause) The morale of the troops that I talk to is phenomenal, which is why my troops are volunteering to go back, despite the hardships they had to endure in Afghanistan.

"And Congressman Moran, 200 of your constituents just returned from Afghanistan. We never got a letter from you; we never got a visit from you. You didn't come to our homecoming. The only thing we got from any of our elected officials was one letter from the governor of this state thanking us for our service in Iraq, when we were in Afghanistan. That's reprehensible. I don't know who you two are talking to but the morale of the troops is very high."

Moran - who is one of the few congressmen supporting Charlie Rangel's call to restore the draft - responded quickly: "That wasn't in the form of a question, it was in the form of a statement. But, uhh... let's go over here." And he took the next question.

That was not in the form of a response to Sgt Seavey in any way shape or form.

Source
.
 
Last edited:
I really am sick and tired of this kind of crap. If this war was justified and worth it, then the people would be behind it. The people are not behind it because as a majority they feel that this war was a mistake and it’s not worth it.

The people were strongly behind World War II because they felt like it was a necessity. Conversely, the people were not behind the Vietnam War because they felt like it was not worth it. The people are not behind this war because they think it’s not worth it. You have no obligation as a patriot to stand behind a war that you do not agree with. That is nationalism, not patriotism. If this war were worth it, the people would be behind it. It’s that simple. If the war were worth it, then troop morale would be high because the people back home would behind the war. If troop morale is low, then it’s not the fault of the people back home that don’t support the war, or the politicians who believe that the war was a mistake. Its the fault of the man who sent them into a war that the people don’t think is worth it.

There is a small percentage of the populace that is morally against any and all wars. I am not one of them and neither are the majority of the American people that now don’t support this war. We don’t support this war because it is a war fought for ideological reasons instead of a war fought out of necessity. Moreover, its not the military that built this country. It’s the military that protects our freedoms, but it’s the American Worker who built this country. If we who build this country and pay taxes don’t agree with an administrations policies or don’t agree with a war, then by God it’s our patriotic duty as citizens who love their country and the principles it stands for to speak out against what we disagree with. While very unfortunate, if troop morale is low as a result, then its not the fault of the patriots who stand up and speak against what they disagree with, it’s the fault of the man who sent them into a war that the American people do not think is worth it.
 
I myself only think there were three major wars in American history that can be justified. The Revolutionary War because we had to defeat British Imperialism. The War of 1812 becuase British Imperialism would not leave us alone. World War II because of Japanese and German Imperialism. The bottom line is that the only justified wars were against imperialism, now we are the imperialists.
 
The non-stop violence in Iraq couldn't be hurting morale? Last I heard recruitment was numbers were low long before Murtha changed his mind about the war.
 
scottyz said:
The non-stop violence in Iraq couldn't be hurting morale? Last I heard recruitment was numbers were low long before Murtha changed his mind about the war.
Recruitment numbers are low because we have a thing here called "the media"...

Re-enlistments, on the other hand, are exceeding the expectations, because the people who are actually there understand the reasoning and don't have to deal with the "75 things are going well but we'll show you the 10 things that aren't" mentality displyed on the airwaves every night...

A mentality far too many fall for...
 
cnredd said:
Recruitment numbers are low because we have a thing here called "the media"...
So the media is controlling potential recruits? Some sort of new mind control? I know two people who just enlisted in the airforce so they must not have be affected.
Re-enlistments, on the other hand, are exceeding the expectations, because the people who are actually there understand the reasoning and don't have to deal with the "75 things are going well but we'll show you the 10 things that aren't" mentality displyed on the airwaves every night...

A mentality far too many fall for...
The bonuses couldn't have hurt.
Army officials attribute the strong re-enlistment rates to unprecedented cash bonuses and a renewed sense of purpose in fighting terrorism. Some of the record bonuses are tax-free if soldiers re-enlist while in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Re-enlistment bonuses range from as little as $1,000 to as much as $150,000, depending on the type of job and length of re-enlistment. The $150,000 bonuses are offered only to senior special operations commandos who agree to stay in the military for up to six more years. The average bonus is $10,000, said Col. Debbra Head, who monitors Army retention at the Pentagon.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-07-17-soldiers-re-enlist_x.htm
 
cnredd said:
Just because YOU don't get offended by what someone says doesn't mean that everyone feels the same way...

I say I'm Polish and Irish, which makes me a dumb drunk. :2wave:

Does that mean that if you said "Polish people are dumb and Irish people are drunks" to every Irish and Polish person you're NOT going to find someone offended?...Doubtful...

Offense is an opinion...There are many people in the military that are NOT offended by Murtha's comments(like I am about Polish & Irish comments), but that doesn't make the concerns others that may feel offended any less legitimate...

I agree. But his threats against the poster were totally out of line, and I am suprised that a moderator didn't say anything about the inappropriateness of his comment. Personally, if he said that to me, I would have considered that a threat.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
I really am sick and tired of this kind of crap. If this war was justified and worth it, then the people would be behind it. The people are not behind it because as a majority they feel that this war was a mistake and it’s not worth it.

The people were strongly behind World War II because they felt like it was a necessity. Conversely, the people were not behind the Vietnam War because they felt like it was not worth it. The people are not behind this war because they think it’s not worth it. You have no obligation as a patriot to stand behind a war that you do not agree with. That is nationalism, not patriotism. If this war were worth it, the people would be behind it. It’s that simple. If the war were worth it, then troop morale would be high because the people back home would behind the war. If troop morale is low, then it’s not the fault of the people back home that don’t support the war, or the politicians who believe that the war was a mistake. Its the fault of the man who sent them into a war that the people don’t think is worth it.

There is a small percentage of the populace that is morally against any and all wars. I am not one of them and neither are the majority of the American people that now don’t support this war. We don’t support this war because it is a war fought for ideological reasons instead of a war fought out of necessity. Moreover, its not the military that built this country. It’s the military that protects our freedoms, but it’s the American Worker who built this country. If we who build this country and pay taxes don’t agree with an administrations policies or don’t agree with a war, then by God it’s our patriotic duty as citizens who love their country and the principles it stands for to speak out against what we disagree with. While very unfortunate, if troop morale is low as a result, then its not the fault of the patriots who stand up and speak against what they disagree with, it’s the fault of the man who sent them into a war that the American people do not think is worth it.

The people stayed behind WW2 because they didn't have a media spewing casualty reports on a daily basis with glee, they didn't have a Democratic congress lying and trying to rewrite the lead up to the war as they saw fit. They didn't have people trying to change the definition of patriotism into never ending dissent. Do you really think the people would have stayed behind the war effort if the media kept on saying that we were losing the war? By todays standards the Normandy invasion and the Battle of Midway would have been reported as total failures. Todays media would have portrayed FDR as a criminal for interning people of Japanese dissent. By todays standards Emperor Hiro Hito and Adolf Hitler would have been portrayed as innocent victims who were just responding to U.S. imperialism. The people stayed behind WW2 because the Republican congress remembered one very important thing that is that politics should end at the waters edge.
 
Last edited:
KidRocks said:
Ya right, that statement from one shamless hypocrite to comfort another.

Yet you both disdain highly-decorated Americans, you both disdain our brave troops, men and women, here, and in Iraq and you still don't realize your hypocrisy. And your hatred of our men and women is all politically-motivated of course. It's because they dare speak-out against the war, because they dare oppose President Bush that you hate these fine Americans.

I know your kind, you call yourselves, "patriots", I like to refer to you people as hypocrite-Americans, shamless-Americans, not true Americans!

Ya true Americans like you right? Gimme a break. Liberal newspeak: Treason = Patriotism and Dissent = Support.

And wow did you just call someone a hypocrit???

First you say that General Pace is a crybaby for stating that Murtha's comments have hurt morale while you call the troops who's morale Murtha's comments have hurt a bunch of pu*ssies,

Then you say AVAN has disdain for highly decorated troops like Murtha for saying that they're hurting troop moral,

And then you say that Avan is a hypocrit for having the sheer audacity for disagreeing with the liberal establishment yet by your own words dissent is a form of patriotism,

So who's the hypocrit here again??? I mean do you even know what a hypocrit is or is it just one of those buzz words that you heard one the grownups use?
 
Last edited:
SouthernDem said:
I really am sick and tired of this kind of crap. If this war was justified and worth it, then the people would be behind it. The people are not behind it because as a majority they feel that this war was a mistake and it’s not worth it.

The people were strongly behind World War II because they felt like it was a necessity.

This "The people were strongly behind WWII" is a misperception in a couple of significant ways. During the 3 - 5 year period leading up to WWII, there was a very strong isolationist movement in the US, as there had been leading up to WWI. This was quite a strong movement, so strong in fact that it took the attack on Pearl Harbor in '41 to get us into the whole thing. Even then, the isolationist crowd did not surrender and go along. Some few of this group did reluctantly endorse our participation in WWII; those remaining in the isolationist camp just got very much quieter.

Lets not forget that the public here at home did not enjoy the fee and mostly unfettered access to combat news that we enjoy (depending on your pov) today. The very strong censorship controls presented the US public only the news that the gov't permitted them to see. Nonetheless, there was simply no way to censor or obscure number of casualties coming home in coffins.

There was also another element that contributed to the strong public support for WWII. Almost our entire national output of factories, mines, everything, was devoted to supporting the war effort. Employment in the defense industries was very high. Producing war goods gave those here at home a bit of a sense of purpose, a way of identifying with the loved ones and friends and neighbors that were away fighting for our freedom.

Bottom line: you just can't compare WWII and Iraq/Afghanistan in terms of the degree of support they engender from the American public. Our views of WWII are too distorted in a benign way by time and censorhip; our views of Iraq/Afghanistan are more realistic but even they are negatively distorted to some arguable extent.
 
Re-enlistment bonuses range from as little as $1,000 to as much as $150,000, depending on the type of job and length of re-enlistment. The $150,000 bonuses are offered only to senior special operations commandos who agree to stay in the military for up to six more years. The average bonus is $10,000, said Col. Debbra Head, who monitors Army retention at the Pentagon.

Let me try to put these bonuses in perspective. I left the Army in Nov 1968. At that time, I had what was considered a 'critical' MOS (job, to you civilians!). If I had re-enlisted for 4 years, my re-up bonus would have been $10,000. One of the non-pecuniary advantages of re-up'ing then was that we got our choice of next duty station, meaning that it was highly unlikely that we would return to Vietnam (unless we volunteered, which a surprising number of us did) for at least the term of our next tour (typically at least one and maybe as long as three years).

That same military job today is still a 'critical' MOS, and carries a re-enlistment bonus of $15,000. Today, I have been told but don't know this from any official source, there is no choice of next duty station. Though re-up'ing will get you the bonus, there is a chance that within the next 12 - 14 months, you are on your way back to Iraq or Afghanistan.

Moreover, certainly $10k in 1968 bought a helluva lot more than $15k buys today. The bonuses may be a factor, but lets keep some perspective.

Yet the people with Iraq and Afghanistan experience are re-enlisting at remarkably high rates. Sounds to me like very strong inner motivation.
 
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
The people stayed behind WW2 because they didn't have a media spewing casualty reports on a daily basis with glee, they didn't have a Democratic congress lying and trying to rewrite the lead up to the war as they saw fit. They didn't have people trying to change the definition of patriotism into never ending dissent. Do you really think the people would have stayed behind the war effort if the media kept on saying that we were losing the war? By todays standards the Normandy invasion and the Battle of Midway would have been reported as total failures. Todays media would have portrayed FDR as a criminal for interning people of Japanese dissent. By todays standards Emperor Hiro Hito and Adolf Hitler would have been portrayed as innocent victims who were just responding to U.S. imperialism. The people stayed behind WW2 because the Republican congress remembered one very important thing that is that politics should end at the waters edge.

Except the Republicans of the early 1900's were more like modern Democrats than modern Republicans. The Republican Party was founded on Hamiltonian policies and anti-slavery sentiment and stayed that way until the Civil Rights Movement of the mid-1900's. :confused:

People rallied behind WWII because Germany was an aggressor that had taken over nearly all of Europe, and also because of the fact that we were bombed by Japan. I don't think you can compare Hussein and Hirohito/Hitler by any stretch of the imagination - the Axis damned well nearly took over the entire world. Hussein was stuck in his landlocked country and essentially impotent.

I know you like to think that there is an evil liberal media that is undermining America, but there's really not. Casualties and bad things are reported because those are the stories that get people's attention - it's a sensationalist bias not a liberal bias.

And damnit, FDR was wrong for putting the Japanese in internment camps - the government even apologized for it.

Wikipedia said:
The U.S. government officially apologized for the internment in the 1980s, saying it was based on "race prejudice, war hysteria, and a failure of political leadership", and paid reparations to survivors. Some reparations were also paid in 1948, and Congress passed eight compensation-related laws between 1951 and 1978.
 
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
Ya true Americans like you right? Gimme a break. Liberal newspeak: Treason = Patriotism and Dissent = Support.

And wow did you just call someone a hypocrit???

First you say that General Pace is a crybaby for stating that Murtha's comments have hurt morale while you call the troops who's morale Murtha's comments have hurt a bunch of pu*ssies,

Then you say AVAN has disdain for highly decorated troops like Murtha for saying that they're hurting troop moral,

And then you say that Avan is a hypocrit for having the sheer audacity for disagreeing with the liberal establishment yet by your own words dissent is a form of patriotism,

So who's the hypocrit here again??? I mean do you even know what a hypocrit is or is it just one of those buzz words that you heard one the grownups use?

With all due respect to Murtha's 4 years active duty out of 37 years someone needs to put a muzzle on this guy.......
 
KidRocks said:
Ahhh, so Murtha's comments have hurt the moral of our troops in Iraq? Poor little troops, such crybabies the top General has under his wing. I suppose the top General is leading his troops by crying and wailing louder then his girly-men just to set an example.

Gen. Peter Pace is such a fool, does this sissy General really think our brave troops are going to let any politician back in the states hurt their feelings by speaking out against the war? He certanly does not have much confidence in our brave troops does he?

We need to rid our armed-forces of p*ssys like General Peter Pace and their crybaby attitudes.

Another lefty attacks our military and in the next sentence he will Say I support the troops...........Yeah, Right.......:roll:
 
Navy Pride said:
With all due respect to Murtha's 4 years active duty out of 37 years someone needs to put a muzzle on this guy.......

I don't know, 4 years in Vietnam and two Purple Hearts isn't something to trivialize, I think.
 
Engimo said:
Except the Republicans of the early 1900's were more like modern Democrats than modern Republicans. The Republican Party was founded on Hamiltonian policies and anti-slavery sentiment and stayed that way until the Civil Rights Movement of the mid-1900's. :confused:

People rallied behind WWII because Germany was an aggressor that had taken over nearly all of Europe, and also because of the fact that we were bombed by Japan. I don't think you can compare Hussein and Hirohito/Hitler by any stretch of the imagination - the Axis damned well nearly took over the entire world. Hussein was stuck in his landlocked country and essentially impotent.

I know you like to think that there is an evil liberal media that is undermining America, but there's really not. Casualties and bad things are reported because those are the stories that get people's attention - it's a sensationalist bias not a liberal bias.

And damnit, FDR was wrong for putting the Japanese in internment camps - the government even apologized for it.


OK so when did Italy attack us again? They didn't but they did ally themselves with our enemy the ally of our enemy is our enemy, Saddam allied himself with AlQaeda just because his personel fingerprints aren't on 9-11 doesn't mean that he isn't guilty by association.

As for there not being a liberal media give me a break just give me a freaking break the UCLA had done a god damn study that proves the media slants to the left.

And Saddam continously threatened his neighbors he even invaded one of them remember? Not to mention the mass genocide that he perpetrated on the Iraqi populace the likes of which have not been seen since Pol-Pot in Cambodia, so who would you like us compare Saddam to, perhaps Jesus I mean after all he's just an innocent victim who is being crucified by an evil imperialist power.

And the Republicans of the 1900s were nothing like the modern Democrats the modern Democrats are all for preventive and interventionalist war but just as long as a Democrats in office; furthermore, the Republicans of the 1900s even when FDR got us involved in a war which they didn't want shut their ****ing mouths after we had troops in harms way.
 
Last edited:
Engimo said:
I don't know, 4 years in Vietnam and two Purple Hearts isn't something to trivialize, I think.

I don't think anyone is trivializing it at all. If they are they shouldn't. But to refer to Murtha as having 37 years of military experience is implying that there is more to his military experience and knowledge than actually exists. At the very least, doing so attempts to leave the reader or listener with an exagerrated sense of same. Very few articles in the MSM have accurately described Murtha's combination of active duty and years in active/inactive Reserves.

I am a Vietnam veteran - I will never denigrate anyone's service (not even that of John Kerry). But to exagerrate that experience to make political points is dishonest. I don't believe Murtha himself has done this, but I do think some in the MSM may have found it compatible with their personal opinions and convenient to portray Murtha's experience as robustly as possible.
 
Back
Top Bottom