Does NOT serving in the military disqualify you from commenting on the Iraq war?

Question

John Murtha, in a session of Congress, shouted down a Republican congressman during debate on the grounds that the Republican had never served in the military. Given that we have a civilian leadership for our military, is Murtha justified in his stance that only soldier and ex-soldier can be allowed to comment on the war?

Answer 1

Absolutly not!We all abide by and live with the same Bill of Rights as guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. #1gives us the freedom of speech.Though some,Murtha included,offend most who hear what they say,they still have the right to vocalize they're views.Right or wrong.

Answer 2

Well for 1. In regards to Murtha, for that remark alone shows what an out of touch (for lack of a better word) person he is.
2. Anyone in the world can comment on the Iraq war. You don't have to be a soldier. The press does it every minute of the day.
3. The soldiers are not the only ones involved. There are also the Iraqi citizens, the terrorist, and there are civilian contractors, that can give their direct opinion.
4. Personally I do give some credence to those that have actually been there....i.e....Lieberman for one. So along with everything else that comes out of Murtha's mouth he is yet again wrong.

Answer 3

Service in the military, while a great contribution, and I personally feel along the lines that everyone should do, should not be a requirement to comment on the Iraq War.
I would say that in the end, it's the wisdom of the comments that matters, not the experience behind the comment. But as with all things, that experience helps to build that wisdom. Which is why the prior military service allows one to know a thing or two about what it actually means to go to war. Being of that same experience, I am against the war we have now. But others who have never served, see many of the same reasons for not carrying out a war.
In the words of Benjamin Franklin, "There never was a good war, or a bad peace." September 11, 1783

Answer 4

This actually has two sides to it and is hard to explain. On most part what qualifies an individual to comment on something they have never witnessed or accomplished. The second being why shouldn't an individual be able to state their thoughts on the subject without knowledge of it which amounts to nothing but theory.
Not knowing first hand what actually goes on in war other then what other individuals tell you (normally the news media who everyone knows stretches the facts to make it something to stand out the way they think it should be which is far from the truth) I am more apt to go with someone who has been in that war.
We have more lawyers who are politicians in Congress and have never served in a uniform for their country then ever before in history. On that basis I think it's time that anyone who runs for public office should be compelled by law to have completed at lease one tour of duty in the military prior to any election.
Today politicians make a trip to a war zone while in office. Just what do you think they learn in 2 or 3 days by asking the GI's how it's going. Very little if you ask me, and doesn't it seem strange that it's usually an election year when they make these trips.
I can't answer your question, but I can give my honest opinion what is going on and have.

Answer 5

?? nicely, I provide you this, you researched your question. So I definately respect you for dealing with the complication. and that i checked for accuracy (on a number of it, not all) too. good interest!! I have a pair themes with this although. a million. you're evaluating apples and oranges. each and each and every warfare is diverse. Our WWII losses would have doubled if we did not drop the bombs. might want to we evaluate doing that now, as Nixon apparently did for the time of Vietnam? 2. keep in mind "challenge achieved"? become that the full of the warfare? Technically, we are not in a warfare immediately. perhaps that is why the dems are disillusioned. what's the challenge in Iraq? First it become WMD's. Then even as that became out to be a bald-confronted lie, we shifted to "isn't it extra acceptable now that Saddam isn't in skill?". After that, it become "we favor to provide stability till a authorities is formed". All that has been finished. So, what's next? what's the challenge? Oh, now we would want to attend till the Iraqi military is as a lot as job. BTW, keep in mind how Rumsfield demanded that the Iraq military be disbanded? would it not not were extra acceptable to save them in provider? 3. have you ever requested the mamma and papa of #2,582 on your stat sheet about how they sense? you're lacking the full factor of the talk by using specializing in "deaths", and exhibiting us that it should not be that undesirable. the point is, we are stuck, a useless ringer for Vietnam and Korea. even as are the troops coming domicile? We nonetheless save 30,000 plus (i imagine, sense free to superb me if i'm incorrect) in South Korea. yet our troops in Korea are not death. Iraq troops are. And, the democrats ask, WHY? It has not something to do with lack of existence prices, yet why we are over there, what's the challenge?

Answer 6

im not sure if his comments were right but if you are disQualified from joining armed forces but you have tried to join to do your part than comment about what ever the f*ck you want cause at least you tried. but if your just a puss-e and have not even atempted to serve your country than you need to just shut up and let the real men handle the situation them selves cause if you willingly refuse to serve than you should have no voice in the matter on the grounds that you just dont deserve to. if you put nothing forth dont complain when you get nothing back.

Answer 7

Does Bush's record in the National Guard, give him the right to comment on the Iraq war?

Answer 8

murtha is a commy pinko :o)
if he were a politico anywhere else in the world he wouldnt have he freedom to voice his opinions

Answer 9

He was commenting on the congressman's lack of military experience, not his right to comment.

Answer 10

Only military personnel are dumb enough to go to war for some greedy dishonest politician.