Top General: Murtha Comments Hurt Morale

[KidRocks]

With all due respect to Murtha's 4 years active duty out of 37 years someone needs to put a muzzle on this guy.......

And another fine example of a r-wing extremist attacking our military, attacking free-speech, and all the while demeaning and belittling the service of a highly decorated, highly respected veteran, and all just to quench his politically-correct r-wing agenda.

 

[Engimo]

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.

The United States has supported Al Qaeda much more than Saddam, if you use that logic. Who was it that financed the campaign of the Taliban against the Soviets in Afghanistan and provided weapons for it?

The Soviets grossly underestimated the huge cost of the Afghan venture--described, in time, as the Soviet Union's Vietnam--to their state.
The peak of the fighting came in 1985-86. The Soviet forces launched their largest and most effective assaults on the mujahedin supply lines adjacent to Pakistan. Major campaigns had also forced the mujahedin into the defensive near Herat and Kandahar.

At the same time a sharp increase in military support for the mujahedin from the United States and Saudi Arabia allowed it to regain the guerilla war initiative. By late August 1986, the first FIM-92 Stinger ground-to-air missiles were used successfully. For nearly a year they would deny the Soviets and the Kabul government effective use of air power.

And who were the mujahedin, again?

Mujahideen (Arabic: ???????, also transliterated as muj?hid?n, mujahedeen, mujahedin, mujahidin, mujaheddin, etc.) is a plural form of mujahid (?????), which literally means "struggler", someone who engages in jihad, or "struggle", but is often translated in the West as "holy warrior"

The United States supported a Jihad in a country that installed a fundamentalist government that spawned people like Osama Bin Laden. We should be invading ourselves before Iraq, on your logic.

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.

The study has been debunked - the methods that they used to come to the conclusion have been decried by many political scientists as not being valid to show political bias.

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.

Not really. There are much worse things going on right now.

After Kashmiri uprising began since late 1989 over 100,000 civilian Kashmiri Muslim and Hindu civilians have been killed and over 500,000 people have been driven away from their homes.

During a period of 100 days in 1994, Officially 937,000 Tutsis and moderate Hutus were killed by Hutus in Rwanda.

The United States government's Sudan Peace Act of October 21, 2002 accused Sudan of genocide in an ongoing civil war which has cost more than 2,000,000 lives and has displaced more than 4,000,000 people since since the war started in 1983.

As opposed to Hussein.

The campaign, which began in 1986 and lasted until 1989, is said to have cost the lives of 182,000 civilian Kurds, according to Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International. The campaign was headed by Ali Hasan al-Majid, a cousin of the Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein. The Anfal campaign included the use of firing squads, mass deportation (Arabization), rockets fired from helicopter gunships and chemical weapons, which earned al-Majid the sobruquet "Chemical Ali". Some allege the Halabja poison gas attack to have been part of Al-Anfal, which is thought to have killed about 5,000 civilians, including babies and children (though the incident occurred in the midst of fighting during the Iraq-Iran War). The al-Anfal campaign also involved the alleged killing and torturing of Kurdish families.

Yeah, Saddam was a dick that killed a damned lot of people, but saying that he is the worst perpetrator of genocide since Pol-Pot is really ridiculous and entirely wrong.

During his time in power Pol Pot created an aggressive regime of agricultural reform, designed to create a utopian Communist society which was known for repressing intellectuals. Today the excesses of his government are widely blamed for causing the deaths of up to two million Cambodians, although estimates vary significantly.

See? Pol-Pot was much worse than Saddam, and there are far worse things going on in the Sudan RIGHT NOW. I'm not defending Saddam - he's a terrible guy.

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.

Oh. Okay.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

The United States has supported Al Qaeda much more than Saddam, if you use that logic. Who was it that financed the campaign of the Taliban against the Soviets in Afghanistan and provided weapons for it?

AlQaeda was not in existence during the Afghanistan war the Mujahedin and the Taliban our not the same things as AlQaeda.

And who were the mujahedin, again?

Not AlQaeda.

The United States supported a Jihad in a country that installed a fundamentalist government that spawned people like Osama Bin Laden. We should be invading ourselves before Iraq, on your logic.

Actually the middle east and radical Islam produced people like OBL not us.
And that's by your logic, by my logic AlQaeda attacked us Saddam harbored AlQaeda we never supported AlQaeda, my logic is the enemy of our enemy is our friend and that the ally of our enemy is our enemy.

The study has been debunked - the methods that they used to come to the conclusion have been decried by many political scientists as not being valid to show political bias.

Debunked really by who? An op-ed piece by the liberal media wow.

Not really. There are much worse things going on right now.

Like what?

As opposed to Hussein.

That's only the Kurds that didn't include other people who Saddam slaughtered.

Yeah, Saddam was a dick that killed a damned lot of people, but saying that he is the worst perpetrator of genocide since Pol-Pot is really ridiculous and entirely wrong.

Really who's worse?

See? Pol-Pot was much worse than Saddam, and there are far worse things going on in the Sudan RIGHT NOW. I'm not defending Saddam - he's a terrible guy.

No Saddam also killed millions you only included the Kurds.

Oh. Okay.

 

[Engimo]

AlQaeda was not in existence during the Afghanistan war the Mujahedin and the Taliban our not the same things as AlQaeda.


Not AlQaeda.

Actually the middle east and radical Islam produced people like OBL not us.
And that's by your logic, by my logic AlQaeda attacked us Saddam harbored AlQaeda we never supported AlQaeda, my logic is the enemy of our enemy is our friend and that the ally of our enemy is our enemy.

Except all your claims of Al Qaeda and Iraq having anything other than a nominal relationship have been shown to be untrue.

Debunked really by who? An op-ed piece by the liberal media wow.

By the study itself. It's obvious that their methodology is nonsensical. Here is a screenshot of the actual paper:



You're telling me that the ACLU is a right-leaning organization? Teehee.

That's only the Kurds that didn't include other people who Saddam slaughtered.

Really who's worse?

No Saddam also killed millions you only included the Kurds.

You're right, my mistake. Saddam's death toll is closer to 1-2 million. The fact remains that the genocide in the Sudan has claimed more lives than Saddam.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Except all your claims of Al Qaeda and Iraq having anything other than a nominal relationship have been shown to be untrue.

Ya says you with no collaborative information to back up your assertion. But that's the typical liberal response: "Believe what I say simply because I said it!"

By the study itself. It's obvious that their methodology is nonsensical. Here is a screenshot of the actual paper:

Well then I suggest take an Empirical Political Analysis cource I just love those who comment on things they know nothing about.

You're telling me that the ACLU is a right-leaning organization? Teehee.

They said it was an annomally due to the citing of the McCain-Feingold bill because it was a bipartisan bill McCain is a Republican and Feingold is a Democrat.

You're right, my mistake. Saddam's death toll is closer to 1-2 million. The fact remains that the genocide in the Sudan has claimed more lives than Saddam.

Actually if anything there exactly equal in the number of casualties; furthermore, the U.S. is the only country in the world who has stated that what is going on in the Sudan is genocide. Collin Powell stood up and publicly stated before the U.N. that: "I concluded that genocide has been committed in Darfur and that the government of Sudan and the Janjaweed bear responsibility." and that the U.N. needed to take immediate interventionalist action on the basis that genocide constitutes a breach of international law, but did the U.N. listen? No they put the Sudan on the ****ing human rights commission for Christ's sakes!

 

[Engimo]

The United States government's Sudan Peace Act of October 21, 2002 accused Sudan of genocide in an ongoing civil war which has cost more than 2,000,000 lives and has displaced more than 4,000,000 people since since the war started in 1983.

> 2,000,000

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

> 2,000,000

Ya I edited it I misremembered your post I was thinking of the genocide in Kashmir and Ruwanda this is what I posted:

Actually if anything they're exactly equal in the number of casualties; furthermore, the U.S. is the only country in the world who has stated that what is going on in the Sudan is genocide. Secretary of State Colin Powell stood up and publicly stated before the U.N. that: "I concluded that genocide has been committed in Darfur and that the government of Sudan and the Janjaweed bear responsibility." and that the U.N. needed to take immediate interventionalist action on the basis that genocide constitutes a breach of international law, but did the U.N. listen? No! Instead in 2004 they put the Sudan on the ****ing human rights commission for Christ's sakes!

 

[ALiberalModerate]

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.

1. It was wrong to intern the Japanese. Of course at the time an entire race of people could not even use the same restrooms that Whites used so I guess people were kind of morally immune to that type of thing back then.

2. World War II was a war of absolute last resort. The people back home knew about the casualties. How in the hell do you think you hide 50,000 dead servicemen? Moreover, the people back home made huge sacrifices for the war. The were on rations to such an extent that you were only allotted a certain number of pairs of shoes in a year and women could not even get nylon panty hose. People’s entire lives revolved around that war so they knew the hell that war was. Much less so than the very sanitized version of war that we have today.

You know why the people were behind World War II? Because literally the fate of civilization was in the balance. If we lost World War II we would be speaking German today. It’s that simple, when a war is an absolute necessity, the people are behind it. The reason why the people are not behind this war is because it is an elective war that was fought for ideological reasons.

3. Many of the Republicans in Congress back during World War II referred to it as Roosevelt’s war. Before we entered the war they were hell bent against providing any aid to Britain. There were literally 9 investigations conducted on Pearl Harbor between 1941 and 1946. Anyone with even a cursory knowledge of history knows that war was every bit as political as any before or since.

When you make statements like you have above, it seems to me that you would have been better suited to have lived under Stalin or something where everything is painted in a glowing picture by the media no matter what. That is not patriotism though, its nationalism and there is a big difference between patriotism and nationalism. The biggest threat to Democracy is to quit questioning our government.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

1. It was wrong to intern the Japanese. Of course at the time an entire race of people could not even use the same restrooms that Whites used so I guess people were kind of morally immune to that type of thing back then.

Was it wrong for FDR to, without warrants, tap the phones of citizens suspected of being Nazi supporters and collaboraters? Oh what's that you say we were at war? Well no ****.

2. World War II was a war of absolute last resort. The people back home knew about the casualties. How in the hell do you think you hide 50,000 dead servicemen? Moreover, the people back home made huge sacrifices for the war. The were on rations to such an extent that you were only allotted a certain number of pairs of shoes in a year and women could not even get nylon panty hose. People’s entire lives revolved around that war so they knew the hell that war was. Much less so than the very sanitized version of war that we have today.

First off it was not a war of last resort FDR wanted the war that's why he placed an embargo on Japan in order to hamper their war efforts against China because he knew that Japan would have no other choice than to attack the U.S. so that they could control our oil assets in the western pacific.

Second off the people may have known about the casualties but they were reported in a very different fashion instead of the headline reading: "Tragedy strikes in Baghdad today 2 U.S. soldiers killed and 14 Iraqi security forces dead." then it goes onto read: "This is just another devastating set back in the Iraqis attempts at Democracy." During WW2 the headline would read: "Huge victory in the push against Berlin today." Then it would go onto read: "In the face of stiff resistance and heavy casualties taken on both sides our boys have successfully pushed through the Arden forest on their march to Berlin."

You know why the people were behind World War II? Because literally the fate of civilization was in the balance. If we lost World War II we would be speaking German today. It’s that simple, when a war is an absolute necessity, the people are behind it. The reason why the people are not behind this war is because it is an elective war that was fought for ideological reasons.

Before FDR placed the embargo (which if it would have been placed on the U.S. would most certainly have been construed as an act of war) had the Japanese ever threatened us? Did Germany ever state any intentions to threaten U.S. interests or to attack us even though we perpetrated in acts of aggression; such as, the lend lease program? This is not to say that we were not rightous in our actions we were but it's just amazing to me how you can rewrite history to justify your opinion of the moment.

3. Many of the Republicans in Congress back during World War II referred to it as Roosevelt’s war. Before we entered the war they were hell bent against providing any aid to Britain. There were literally 9 investigations conducted on Pearl Harbor between 1941 and 1946. Anyone with even a cursory knowledge of history knows that war was every bit as political as any before or since.

Ya key words there: 'before the war' after the war started they threw in their full support because they remembered that politics should stop at the waters edge.

When you make statements like you have above, it seems to me that you would have been better suited to have lived under Stalin or something where everything is painted in a glowing picture by the media no matter what. That is not patriotism though, its nationalism and there is a big difference between patriotism and nationalism. The biggest threat to Democracy is to quit questioning our government.

When you make statements like you have made it's obvious to me that you're well versed in revisionist history thumbs up to you sir.

And speaking of living in Stalinist Russia under a propagandists media what do you think that we're living in now? It seems to me that you enjoy having a media that no longer is simply content with reporting the news but they now feel that they should make the news to be what they want it to be not what it is. The front page of the NYTs would have been the editorial section thirty years ago. Reporters are no longer simply journalists who report the facts they are advocates for the liberal agenda.

Ask any journalist major in college why they want to be a journalist and 10-1 odds that their answer is somewhere along the lines of: "Because I want to change the world." If you want to change the world join the Peace Corps because that aint news partner, that's called propoganda with an agenda.

And I do question the government that's why I'm a Republican unlike the big government liberal elitests on the left I don't trust the government to be the cure to the peoples ills but I do believe that the government does have a few necessary rolls providing National Security is first and foremost on that list.

 

[Navy Pride]

I don't know, 4 years in Vietnam and two Purple Hearts isn't something to trivialize, I think.

I don't think he spent 4 years in Nam and a Purple heart is one of the easiest medals to get in combat........

 

[Navy Pride]

And another fine example of a r-wing extremist attacking our military, attacking free-speech, and all the while demeaning and belittling the service of a highly decorated, highly respected veteran, and all just to quench his politically-correct r-wing agenda.

Listen butthole I spent 21 years in that military and I would never criticize it...You are attacking the wrong people here bud..........You have no clue......

 

[BWG]

I don't think he spent 4 years in Nam and a Purple heart is one of the easiest medals to get in combat........

IMO, this has to be the most vile, despicable, thoughtless, uncaring, brainless thing you have ever typed.

The over 50,000 brave men and women killed in Vietnam all earned the Purple Heart. Why don't you ask their family and friends how EASY it was to earn that medal? Names on that wall include my cousin and several friends. My cousin was killed on 4/28/1968 in the Thua Thien Province of the Republic of South Vietnam. My cousin was a year and a half older than me and lived down the street from us. We played ball together, explored the woods, fished in the pond and so on. It wasn't like he lived across the country and we only saw each other every few years. We grew up together. He was only 20 when he was killed, so never had a chance to start a family. He has one sister still living from his immediate family and she has that Purple Heart. Ask her how easily she'll part with it.

How about the men and women who have lost hands, feet, arms, legs, etc? They are awarded Purple Hearts. Ask them how EASY it was to earn. I've got a close friend who is an inch and a quarter shorter today than he was when he was 18. Shrapnel from Vietnam. He doesn't think his Purple Heart was so EASY to earn.

You say you are a military veteran and support the troops, but your feeble comments to try and cheapen and discredit a military award just to attack someone you disagree with disgusts me.

If you don't agree with someones view on something, that is perfectly understandable. Just don't disrespect an award that is presented posthumously to some that have given the ultimate sacrifice for their country, in order for you to hurl a cheapshot at someone.

I would expect something like this from someone 'who had other priorities' or 'had a boil on his butt' or 'all the minorities took the jobs'. They had no respect before, why would they now?

But, for someone who has been there done that. Inexcusable!!







I know you're not going to understand my point here and your post will reflect that, but at least I got it off my chest. :roll:

 

[Navy Pride]

IMO, this has to be the most vile, despicable, thoughtless, uncaring, brainless thing you have ever typed.

The over 50,000 brave men and women killed in Vietnam all earned the Purple Heart. Why don't you ask their family and friends how EASY it was to earn that medal? Names on that wall include my cousin and several friends. My cousin was killed on 4/28/1968 in the Thua Thien Province of the Republic of South Vietnam. My cousin was a year and a half older than me and lived down the street from us. We played ball together, explored the woods, fished in the pond and so on. It wasn't like he lived across the country and we only saw each other every few years. We grew up together. He was only 20 when he was killed, so never had a chance to start a family. He has one sister still living from his immediate family and she has that Purple Heart. Ask her how easily she'll part with it.

How about the men and women who have lost hands, feet, arms, legs, etc? They are awarded Purple Hearts. Ask them how EASY it was to earn. I've got a close friend who is an inch and a quarter shorter today than he was when he was 18. Shrapnel from Vietnam. He doesn't think his Purple Heart was so EASY to earn.

You say you are a military veteran and support the troops, but your feeble comments to try and cheapen and discredit a military award just to attack someone you disagree with disgusts me.

If you don't agree with someones view on something, that is perfectly understandable. Just don't disrespect an award that is presented posthumously to some that have given the ultimate sacrifice for their country, in order for you to hurl a cheapshot at someone.

I would expect something like this from someone 'who had other priorities' or 'had a boil on his butt' or 'all the minorities took the jobs'. They had no respect before, why would they now?

But, for someone who has been there done that. Inexcusable!!







I know you're not going to understand my point here and your post will reflect that, but at least I got it off my chest. :roll:

I know people that wounded theirselves in Nam and got the PH........John Kerry for one..........

 

[KidRocks]

I know people that wounded theirselves in Nam and got the PH........John Kerry for one..........

There you go again, attacking another highly decorated, highly respected Vietnam Veteran hero who served his country in time of war, much to your dismay it seems. You just can't help yourself, can you?

We already know of your hatred for that hawkish Democrat John Murtha, who by the way is another highly decorated, highly respected Vietnam Veteran too.

They all won distinguished Purple-Hearts but I forgot how you hate certain Purple-Heart Awards recepients, how you just hate certain decorated war Veterans, don't you? Sorry!

Did I mention Wesley Clark and his Purple-Hearts?

You know now that I think of it, you probably hate Al Gore too, don't you?

 

[ALiberalModerate]

I know people that wounded theirselves in Nam and got the PH........John Kerry for one..........

I know this may be a foreign concept for you, but you can disagree with someone on an ideological issue and still recognize that individual is an honorable and decent person.

 

[shuamort]

So I'm nothing but a crybaby? Go **** yourself!!!! Better yet, come see me so I can kick your ass you little bitch. You know nothing about honor, courage and committment.

Mod Note

This is not acceptable. Do not threaten another member again.

/Mod Note

 

[Navy Pride]

I know this may be a foreign concept for you, but you can disagree with someone on an ideological issue and still recognize that individual is an honorable and decent person.

I recognize Murtha for his 4 years active duty service.I thank him for that.........In fact I am originally from Pa. and his district......That said it gives him no right to put our military down.....