Lt. Paul Rieckhoff Tells the Truth About Iraq and Afghanistan

[Rowan]

WOW this is a very interesting interview!! This man is very articulate and has a powerful message to deliver!

US soldiers come together to tell the truth about Iraq and Afghanistan. Operation Truth founder Lt. Paul Rieckhoff is interviewed by Janine Jacquet

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/audioblog?bid=8&pid=1884

[Senmut]

"As one of the country's most important progressive media outlets, and sponsored by The Nation Institute, RadioNation features the voices and thoughts of leading journalists, authors and activists.
"

"Leading". "Progressive". AKA Left.


And now, for some balance...
=================

This article is from the San Francisco Chronicle.

Survey finds U.S. military upbeat on Bush
Troops, their families also positive on Iraq
- Matthew B. Stannard, Chronicle Staff Writer
Saturday, October 16, 2004


U.S. troops and their families have a more positive impression of their commander-in-chief and a more upbeat attitude about both Iraq and the United States than the general public does, according to the University of Pennsylvania's National Annenberg Election Survey.

Sixty-seven percent of respondents said they approved of the way President Bush was doing his job, compared with 49 percent in a sample of the general public collected during the same period.

Similarly, 69 percent of survey respondents said they had a favorable opinion of the president, while just 29 percent had a favorable opinion of his Democratic opponent, Sen. John Kerry. That compared to a nationwide favorability rating of 49 percent for Bush and 44 percent for Kerry.

The survey, released Friday, reflected the opinions of 655 adults who either served on active duty between February and October or were family members of military who could not be interviewed. It was conducted between Sept. 22 and Oct. 5 and has a margin of error of four percentage points.

The survey did not indicate how armed forces members plan to vote because polling active-duty members of the military about their vote is prohibited by law, but 94 percent of the sample said they intend to vote.

Part of the explanation for Bush's high numbers was that in the military survey group, Republicans outnumbered Democrats by more than two to one, said survey political director Adam Clymer. That is in keeping with past research that has found increasing numbers of military members identifying themselves as Republicans over the past 30 years, especially among officers and career members.

A recent unscientific reader survey by Military Times, publisher of the Army Times and its sister publications, found that 71 percent of respondents were planning to vote for Bush, compared with 18 percent for Kerry.

The Annenberg survey also found that the military was more upbeat on issues like the war and the economy than the general public.

Forty-five percent of respondents rated the nation's economy as excellent or good, compared with 25 percent of the general public, and 61 percent rated their personal economic situation as excellent or good, compared with 48 percent of the general public.

On the war in Iraq, 64 percent of respondents said they thought the situation in Iraq was worth going to war, compared with 45 percent of the general public. Removing Saddam Hussein from power was the most frequently cited reason for going to war.

Despite that optimism, the survey respondents were more or less evenly split on whether the war reduced or increased the risk of terrorism in the United States and on whether the president has a clear plan to bring the conflict in Iraq to a successful conclusion. On the other hand, respondents believed Kerry does not have a clear plan in Iraq by a 4-to-1 margin.

Graham Clark, a major in the California National Guard who returned from Iraq in March to his position as principal of Homestead High School in Sunnyvale, said he was not surprised by the survey's findings.

The military tends to be more conservative, said Clark, who backs Bush, and has a tradition of supporting the commander-in-chief, even though individual members may question a specific action or decision.

Clark also said he thought the military's greater optimism was a reflection of a difference in perception. He said his most vivid memories of Iraq were the seven schools he helped to open and the Iraqi workers employed on his base, not the dangerous situations he encountered.

"Conditions were hard over there, but I wouldn't say you had the feeling . .. that things were as bad as they appeared on the news," he said. "I was more hopeful when I was over there than the reports you get on the news."

But an Army Reserve captain in a Bay Area unit, speaking on condition of anonymity, said he was surprised that the survey found few differences between regular military respondents and members of the National Guard and reserve, who he thought might not support the president as much because of long deployments that have stretched those forces thin.

The captain, who supports Kerry, said he was also struck by the finding that more military members rated Kerry higher than Bush on being "reckless" --

47 percent to 37 percent -- while the general public held the opposite impression, with 46 percent saying the "reckless" applied better to Bush and just 30 percent saying it applied more to Kerry.

"This feeling from the military toward Kerry is only based on his perceived flip-flopping,'' the captain said. "In the military, decisions have to be made decisively."



Zachary

I can't imagine why someone in the military today would vote for Bush. He clearly put our men and women in uniform in harm's way recklessly and unnecessarily. Prior to the invasion he made it sound like Iraq was floating on a sea of poison gas and disease bacteria. If he let the inspectors do their work he would have found out that Iraq didn't have any WMDs since 1991. Saddam and his sons were all rotton SOBs. But they were toothless bullies who wanted to keep Iraq secular so they could stay fat and happy off of illeagal oil profits. They did not pose an clear and present danger to the U.S.
Afganistan is a different story. This is where Al Queda had a stonghold under the Taliban. It made sense to go where the 9-11 plotters were holed up. Now, however, Afganistan is a side-show to Bush's fiasco in Iraq. Troops and supplies that should be in Afganistan are instead sent to Iraq. Osama Bin Ladin is still on the loose. Afganistan is not secured. Bandits and Warlords rule much of the country. These thugs have returned Afganistan the dubious title of the #1 exporter of heroine in the world. Instead, Bush and his cronies claim that Iraq is an important front on the war on terror. It is...now that he has invaded it. Iraq is Al Queda's greatest recruiting tool. New terrorists are recruited every day to fight American forces in Iraq. If you think America's brave fighting men and women should die fighting imagined threats, vote for Bush. If you enjoy being lied to, vote for Bush. If you like to have your enlistment involuntarily and indefinitely extended...vote for Bush. If you think tortureing prisoners should be even considered...vote for Bush. If you are willing to die so that Halliburton and the Saudi's can cash in...vote for Bush. If you think running up a multi billion dept for Iraq that will take generations to pay off is a good idea...vote for Bush.

George W Bush

Originally Posted by Warrior

It was just a matter of time before Saddam had to be taken down.

Sooner the better, *BEFORE* he got hold of nuclear arsenal.

Sure, Bush went in for all the wrong reasons, but like I said: It was only a matter of time.

I support neither Bush nor Kerry.

With this rationale, we should occupy North Korea and Iran. They already have the bomb will be willing to hold free nations hostage to their demands. Heck, for all the "evidence" Bush quoted, let's invade Canada, just in case.

[Darth Marley]

Anyone that put on the uniform with the intent of getting college paid for, but not having to sacrifice should have chosen another path.

Politics is a divisive topic, and I am fine with that.
The right doesn't get everything right, but the left has had everything wrong for the past few decades.

Not only was Iraq and Afganistan invasions a necessary evil, the job isn't finished yet, Syria and Iran have a few issues that will likely need a military resolution.

Bluntly said, opposing such actions puts one squarely on the side that wants terrorists to plan safely in Damascus, and wants the mullahs of Iran to be able to nuke Israel. There is no explaining away one's position when faced with the logical outcome of inaction.

[Darth Marley]

Korea having the bomb...remember that lovely little "treaty" that the Clinton administration negotiated that was supposed to solve that little problem?

[Darth Marley]

A quick quote from Dan Savage, noted homosexual author of "Skipping Toward Gomorrah:"

I think my next target will be the left and its reaction to the war on terrorism. I don't understand being more afraid of John Ashcroft than Osama bin Laden. Personally, I prefer Christian fundamentalists to Islamic fundamentalists.

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articl...34/ai_95541082

Which sums up my take on the current culture war here in the decadent west.

We have the same noble liberals that insist on options like "choice" that seem to go weak when faced with an enemy that mutilates newborn daughters as a matter of cultural diversity.

[Charybdis]

Here's the rub: N. Korea now has the bomb because we did nothing!!...it was a matter of time before Saddam would have had it. Now Iran wants it...

All that we get from sitting around negotiating treaties is another rogue country with nuclear weapons. Now what are we going to do with N. Korea? I'll tell you what: nothing because they have nuclear weapons and now they have US over the barrel!

Can't you see that this world is now a lot smaller than you think?? Like it or not, we are the world's policeman and being the only superpower, we must act in that role. If we don't act, there will be hell to pay with many other rogue states having nuclear weapons and then we are in BIG trouble!!!

I don't want that to happen any more than it already has....

[Darth Marley]

If Canadians do not get wise, maybe we should invade.

[Charybdis]

Yeah, I've always wanted to go to Toronto!!!

[Darth Marley]

Toronto first! Can't leave JL up there surrounded by Cylons!

[Rowan]

Originally Posted by Darth Marley

If Canadians do not get wise, maybe we should invade.

You guys all ready tried that FIVE times so far and we won each time! Now leave us alone no more invading!!!
Canadians are very wise we just have a different philosophy and we are exposed to different opinions and information than American people are plus there has to be somebody in the world family that acts as the peace keeper. You had us hook line and sinker on Sep 11. The people of Canada accepted all of the flights going to the US. We closed down places like schools to provide a place for the stranded passengers to go, and many of us offered our homes to strangers, we actually drove to the airports and grabbed people, any people complete unknown strangers and brought them into our homes for days. We brought food and personal care items to the travelers, and businesses donated food and coffee, etc. for them. People donated money and blood. We were completely on the side of the Americans and whole heartedly supported them until...


The United States tries to hard to control things from the top down if the US wants other countries not to build these weapons then don't wait for them to all ready have it and attack them that would be dangerous they all ready have it they could use it against you. Approach it from the bottom up, don't sell them the stuff they need to build these things or the arms they need to fight back with and don't teach the Osama’s of the world how to fight etc. or "Humanities children" will return with a vengeance

Try thinking about it differently rather than see the US as the parents in a house full of kids that need to be dealt with think of it like they are people in a house on a city block filled with different houses. Every house has their own way of being and it's members have their own way of interacting you can't just look at your neighbours house across the street and decided that because you don't like the way the family interacts with each other because it’s different than yours that you are entitled to go over their and change it. "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" remember that? America is casting stones and yet it is not without sin other countries may have developed nuclear abilities but The United States is the only nation to have used it to kill hundreds of thousands of people. These other countries look to The United States as the embodiment of power and they see a nation armed to the teeth and not afraid to use it and so they want to feel and be powerful too for them that is symbolized by possessing nuclear bombs. They are simply trying to emulated the USA based on the example Americans set. Being the most militarily powerful country in the world should saddle Americans with a terrible burden of responsibility to act very wisely and carefully. Americans are setting an example for all to look up to and want to emulate. At this time do Americans want others to act towards them the way they have acted towards other countries?

[Darth Marley]

Just wait, if oil goes up $20 more dollars a barrel, we'll come and get it.

But seriously, Rowan, what is with all these threads regarding US domestic politics?
I see issues with the war, and the implications of a conservative Supreme Court, but what has this to do with you?
How does any of this make it safe for you to leave the door unlocked at night?

I understand that you are on the left, I am on the right (relatively) and sometimes we can have fun with that. But here you are saying the USA is trying to control the world, and we have all these Canadian secret agents trying to influence how we vote on the web.

[Darth Marley]

And by the way,I often hear foolish leftist talk about how the Iraq invasion was about oil.

I always point out that we get most of our oil from Canada, Mexico, and Venezuela, so if we wanted to war for oil, these countries are a much shorter drive.

[Rowan]

Originally Posted by Darth Marley

Just wait, if oil goes up $20 more dollars a barrel, we'll come and get it.

Originally Posted by Darth Marley

Actually I think most Canadians believe or realize that Americans will come and get it or water when they run out someday not a day I'm looking forward to but probably in my lifetime or that of my children.



But seriously, Rowan, what is with all these threads regarding US domestic politics? Because your about to vote for your new President just thought it would be nice to have more info that's all.

I see issues with the war, and the implications of a conservative Supreme Court, but what has this to do with you? A lot I'm Canadian every thing the US does affects us if you lived here you'd see what I mean.

How does any of this make it safe for you to leave the door unlocked at night? I don't feel safe here, especially not since 9/11 and not because of what the terrorist did.



I understand that you are on the left, I am on the right (relatively) and sometimes we can have fun with that. But here you are saying the USA is trying to control the world, and we have all these Canadian secret agents trying to influence how we vote on the web.

Actually I'm not left or right or don't see it that way never have understood making divisions like that it just gives people a reason to discount what you have to say if they can put you in a category then they can dismiss you without even hearing you. I'm not about dismissing anyone’s opinion based on where they stand, so I don't categorize I just say oh they feel this way about this issue it doesn't mean they feel that way about every issue. I know I don't. There are some pretty big corporations out there who control a lot of the media and can control what is said or not said and just because we hear certain things being promulgated by the press does not necessarily make them true, it's important to look at what others are saying too and somewhere in the middle find the balance. Here in BC we had problems with a Mr. Black who owned and controlled the two major newspapers. He instructed all his editors to write only negative articles about First Nation Peoples those who would not comply were given the boot. There was so much negative publicity over First Nations People that they were becoming even more poorly treated than they all ready had been the truth was completely twisted around and peoples perceptions of the truth were manipulated by the press because they did not question what they read they did not look beyond to see who was writing this and why. I took a wonderful course in College that discussed the importance of always examining the motives of the person or persons who wrote things in the press or conducted research ask questions like who funded this person or organizations research, what are their interests or motives etc. So it is simply with this in mind that I posted those pages t'is all.

[Darth Marley]

Actually, we have the technology to make water. It isn't that difficult.
Those that think we are running out of water need a little re-education at Camp Marley.

I can understand that your country is affected by what happens here. Like it or not, you were protected by the US nuclear umbrella during the cold war. You guys got to be sandwiched between two global powers without having much to worry about.

Seeing the global fight now between what amounts to half of my country, and religious zealots half a world away, I am genuinely curious about those that think the fighting should stop before it has run its rational course.

[Archangel]

But what was the price of that protection? Since then, the US government has been under the apparent impression that the Canadian government should bend over for them on every issue since. Admittedly, while Brian Mulroney was PM in the late '80's/early '90's they got there wish. Currently there is a knot in the White House's knickers about Canada's reluctance to be a part of this proposed 'Missile Defense Shield'. They keep bringing up that protection during the Cold War as a reason to aquiesce. They just keep forgetting to bring the fact that the protection they provided would have been non-existent if it didn't concern their 'National Security'.

I'm not knocking the US or her security concerns. I'm just tired of being told to be grateful for the past, as if what transpired during the cold war was an example of generosity rather than expediance.

[Darth Marley]

You Canadians have a wonderful Charter of Rights.

I cannot understand anyone's reluctance to be involved in strategic missile defense.
Sure, it does not defend against all threats, but neither do smoke alarms or seatbelts.

[Archangel]

Because the threats now don't really come from a nation with missiles, they come from people flying planes (9/11), driving cars (Oklahoma City), and possibly have access to packpack nukes. Missile defence shield is kinda useless against those.

Even if one of the nations that have ICBMs considers using them, the only real threat is China, and they appreciate the the US can turn their entire country into a crater if they so much as look the wrong way.

[Darth Marley]

China, N Korea, Iran, Pakistan, France if they get too pissy.

Strategic defense makes sense. Spin-off technologies may defend the planet aginst a rogue asteroid.

The only argument against it is babble from those infected with Chomskyite memes.

[Archangel]

(at the Chomskyite meme infection remark)

Not many of those countries have intercontinental capabilities however.

France (Heh!) When was the last time they started a war and won it?

And if the spin-off applications of military technology could save the world from asteroids etc.(and I agree with you on that one) Why couldn't they develop THAT technology and then spin it off into military tech instead.

[Darth Marley]

Look, I understand the arguments against SDI, and disagree on reasonable grounds.
Bulletproof vests don't defend against crossbow bolts (try it yourself if you don't believe me), but that does not mean the protection they offer is worthless.

Overall, the cold war is not entirely over, at the least, the propoganda arms are still functioning. Looking honestly at where the "peace" movement is getting its funding answers that question.

[Darth Marley]

The small nukes, like the old Soviet briefcase bombs. Think about it. These designs use a minimum critical mass fuel. That means that a few years tick by, and they don't go boom any more.

[Archangel]

Before the wall fell in Berlin, I was a proponant of Reagan's SDI program for the simple reason that a preemptive strike from the USSR was a distinct possibility at the time. But now, there are more immediate threats from rogue groups of people who do not have access to the kinds of threats that SDI is designed to counter. Let's concentrate on the more immediate threat first, THEN worry about the necessity of SDI.

[Darth Marley]

Perhaps you are right, if we Americans spend enough on education, then in one generation we can rid ourselves of the scourge of left leaning psuedo-intellectuals.

[Archangel]

resorting to insults?

Rowen and Archangel,


Please don't let the statements of some extreme right wing loonies color your impressions of the American people. Most Americans are thoughtful people. We appreciate having a friendly nation on our longest border. If Canada doesn't agree with the U.S. at times, that's fine. It is your right as a soverign nation.

[Darth Marley]

Insults?
I didn't think you would be affected by US educational policies.

And I don't really mean it to be insulting to leftists.

I sincerely believe that given enough education, everyone will realize that Keynsian economics are a fallacy. That take cuts increase dollars into the treasury. And a host of other cases in which the left has been proven wrong by history and theory.

The problem is overcoming the emotional bias against situations that "seem" unfair.

[Archangel]

Thanks Bijou,

Speaking for myself, I'm enjoying this. It's not often when differences can be debated without turning into insults. Any right-winger's opinion is just as valid as a left-winger's. And sometimes they're right. My little discussion with Darth has been a pleasure since we were able to do it without any insults to each other's views, unlike so many other areas of the board, happening.

[Archangel]

Originally Posted by Darth Marley

Insults?
I didn't think you would be affected by US educational policies.

And I don't really mean it to be insulting to leftists.

I sincerely believe that given enough education, everyone will realize that Keynsian economics are a fallacy. That take cuts increase dollars into the treasury. And a host of other cases in which the left has been proven wrong by history and theory.

The problem is overcoming the emotional bias against situations that "seem" unfair.

Just yanking your chain

And I agree with you on the economic aspect of the post. The province that I live in is a great believer in tax increases to fill thier coffer's. TPTB can't seem to wrap their brains around the concept that higher taxes cause a smaller tax base which requires another tax hike.