Letter to the American people from a soldier in Iraq,

Letter to the American people from a soldier in Iraq,
In response to the 1st Presidential debate!

(Mods I can't seem to get the link to go right, I have pasted the entire letter in , but if you can get just the portion of the page that is the letter, I would appreciate it. ) www.25thaviation.org...

The 1st debate in the campaign for presidency of the United States raised some crucial issues that are still a cause for confusion to the American people. I decided it�s time for a viewpoint from someone who is in the middle of this war and has no room for debating this issue.

I have been in Iraq almost 9 months and I have seen the good and the bad of this war. Terrorists from other regions have been �pouring over the borders�, but certainly not for the first time. They are making contact with other members of Al Qaeda and other terrorist supporters on the inside of Iraq.

There are many tribes in the Sunni Triangle that openly invite foreign terrorists and provide refuge to those who join and help them. Tribes that are so dedicated to their cause of preventing a free Iraq, a Middle Eastern US ally, that even amid extreme impoverished living conditions, they will not respond to rewards offered for key Al Qaeda leaders.
25 million US dollars for Zarqawi should be enough to influence someone to provide information on his whereabouts, but apparently it�s not. The roots of terrorism run deep with some tribes in the Sunni triangle in Iraq. Terrorism was not born when the US rolled in on March 19th, 2003! Terrorism has been networked across the globe, and Iraq has been a major hub for terrorist activity long before we arrived.

The 1st debate between Bush and Kerry has highlighted a chasm between the two campaigns, more importantly, the two men regarding the question of Iraq and its role in terrorism. This is a split that is impossible to comprehend from where I stand!

Of course the war in Iraq is part of the war on terror! When Senator John Kerry said �the president made a colossal error of judgment by diverting attention from the war on terrorism and the hunt for terrorist leader Osama Bin Laden�, he could not be more wrong.

When Senator Kerry said that �Mr. Bush was not candid with the public about his reasons for invading Iraq or the difficult fight ahead�, besides exhibiting a poor memory, he showed an incredible lack of ability to see that no mission will ever go exactly as you plan it.

A candidate for the US presidency ought to know that your enemy is going to have something to say about how the fight is fought. The enemy is going to do the unexpected, and plans will change. I am sorry that it�s not an ideal scenario for Senator Kerry, but no war is.

I am repeatedly asked what the soldiers feel about the war in Iraq. Soldiers in the US armed forces come in all shapes and sizes� and viewpoints. I don�t pretend to speak for all soldiers, but I do believe that most men and women in today�s military share something very close to these same beliefs.

Most soldiers here believe in the mission in Iraq. They know, like I do, that the former regime in Iraq was an important component in the war on Terror. There is no doubt that terrorist cells have been allowed to operate within these borders for some time, and that Hussein�s regime most likely provided financial support as well!

Do the soldiers want to be here? I have not met a soldier yet that does not want to come home, who wouldn�t? But they do believe in this mission. Most soldiers believe that it is imperative to keep the mission going at least until security is established in Iraq.

There is no greater dishonor to the 1350 plus coalition and contractor deaths, and over 7,000 wounded men and women, than to plan a retreat before a reasonable assurance for the success of the new Iraqi government can be attained.

I don�t know where this concept of get in and get out was started, but sometimes wars are not accommodating to that theory. The United States has earned a poor reputation for resolve to finish the job, and it�s time the proponents of that trend, like Senator Kerry, realize it and correct it by stopping their efforts to politicize our mission.
Kerry�s message to the troops was, �Help is on the way!� In what form Senator Kerry?

You have alienated the coalition countries that we fight beside every day. You cannot articulate a plan for success, and you have no grasp that this war was even necessary. Thanks, but no thanks!

"Wrong War, Wrong Place, Wrong Time?" You tell that story to the millions of impoverished, and persecuted Iraqi people who for the past generation have lived with the fear of being marched out into the desert and shot for their beliefs.
You tell that story to the families of those bodies recovered from the dozens of mass graves throughout Iraq. Try to sell that load of bull to the little kids who were denied access to their water in the Marshlands of Iraq and left to starve to death. Sell it to someone else, but not me!

Senator Kerry sent a message to the American people in his closing remarks that said that he will �get your kids home and get the job done and win the peace�.

I am a 38 year old man who joined the military 18 years ago, and I have yet to find a �kid� in Uniform from the United States. I have however found many good young men and women who are proudly serving their country.

Men and Women from all over the United States have joined the military of their own free will, knowing that one day they may be asked to put their lives in harms way. Very few of these men and women want to be here, it�s just a commitment that we made, and one that we intend to honor.

I sincerely hope that you enjoy your moment in the spotlight Senator Kerry! I know that in the end, the bull that you have been selling to the American people will be recognized and that the voters will let you know what they think of it come November.

American�s need a president who will make sound decisions, and not be afraid of what the global community thinks. That man is already in office, and will remain in office for four more years!


Captain Ron Hayes
US Army, Iraq








Very Interesting perspective on things.....



The media has always been biased, but only relatively recently in our history have they not been transparent about it. The claim that reporters possess some sort of mystical objectivity not available to mere mortals is only a recent invention.

In the past, newspapers wore their bias on their masthead, and we still have remnants of that today. The Arkansas Democrat Gazette and the Rochester Democrat and Chronicle to name a couple. William Rockhill Nelson used the Kansas City Star to crusade for urban reform in the 1800s, while William Randolph Hearst more infamously used his newspaper empire to provoke a war with Spain at the turn of the century.

While most Americans (and the rest of the world) have to depend on a few hundred reporters to get their information on what is happening in Iraq, we at The Truth About Iraq.org were lucky enough to be able to ask thousands - tens of thousands - of Iraqis their opinions of what is happening in Iraq.

We've identified some of the major myths manufactured by the media, and we have tried to counter them with statistically valid public opinion research.

The truth is better than you think. Be proud America.


We are Forcing Democracy on the Iraqis.
www.thetruthaboutiraq.org...


Iraqis want an Islamic theocracy.
www.thetruthaboutiraq.org...


Iraqis want the Coalition Forces to leave immediately.
www.thetruthaboutiraq.org...


The situation in Iraq would be going better if the United States had gotten United Nations support.
www.thetruthaboutiraq.org...


Since we did not find weapons of mass destruction, going into Iraq was a waste.
www.thetruthaboutiraq.org...



The insurgency in Iraq is a popular uprising.
www.thetruthaboutiraq.org...


There is no hope of "winning the peace".
www.thetruthaboutiraq.org...




www.thetruthaboutiraq.org...



[edit on 22-10-2004 by edsinger]

Lets see 25 views and NO replies, that woudl be about right for a left leaning audience....wouldnt you say?

PS. I wonder if they even followed the links to the vote results?

EXCELLENT!

Thankyou for for this reference.

A team comprised of experts with specific and relevant experience has now been created. Their expertise will ensure the successful achivement of the following goals:

1. raise money to produce and air a 30 second television spot that reminds Americans that \ they can be proud of the good work being done in Iraq by the US and Coalition Forces, and
2. spread the message via the Internet about this project.

With your help, America can be proud.

For most of the last year, California political consultant Steven Moore advised Ambassador Paul Bremer and the Coalition Provisional Authority on Iraqi public opinion.

Mr. Moore helped develop Iraqi capacity for public opinion research. After conducting more than 70 focus groups in 13 Iraqi cities, and having a hand in writing and analyzing nearly a dozen public opinion polls, Mr. Moore is a leading expert on Iraqi public opinion.

In addition to his experience in Iraq, Mr. Moore was part of the team of American consultants that secretly advised Boris Yeltsin's campaign in Russia, whose efforts were documented in a TIME Magazine covers story, featured and nightline and most recently portrayed in the award-winning Showtime movie "Spinning Boris," starring Jeff Goldblum. He has worked with political leaders in five countries with Islamic extremist movements.

Mr. Moore is currently a partner in the Sacramento-based political consulting firm of Gorton Moore International. He can be contacted for speaking engagements or media appearances at [email protected].

Yes, thank you! I mean, if we can't trust someone who advised Paul Bremer, who can we trust?

EDIT: Added the positive images!

[edit on 4-10-2004 by curme]

Originally posted by curme

Yes, thank you! I mean, if we can't trust someone who advised Paul Bremer, who can we trust?

I wonder if he advised Bremer, on disbanding Iraq�s Army,
and firing tens of thousands of government bureaucrats because they were Ba�ath party members.

And also I wonder if he advised Bremer who is supposedly bringing the light of democracy to Iraq, "down a tiny, 10,000 circulation Shia newspaper and arrested its editor for `spreading anti-American views� and calling Bremer rude names. The paper�s publisher was firebrand Shia mullah Moqtada al-Sadr, who has been calling on Iraqis to resist US occupation"

So I guess he helped Bremer to make what is right now one of Americans most wanted a little-respected junior cleric with a limited following, into an overnight hero to restive Shias.


For more information link to www.disinfopedia.org...

Spin it off how you like, but did you actually look at the Iraqi poll results?

Yes I did and perhaps some of them are right but occurs it depends what part of the population was asked, now you have to understand that Paul Bremer will do anything to make Iraq look good, so some bias will be in those polls.

Umm, hate to burst your bubble, but Mr. Stephen Moore is one half of Gorton Moore International, the Political Consulting Firm responsible for getting Arnold Schwazeneggar and variety of other Republican conservatives elected in California.

But these results still say that more than half of the Iraqi's want us out of their country ASAP or immediately after the elections. Also, much of the data is from last year--things are significantly different now. Many Iraqi's are also now falling under the traditional religious rule of the Shiites and Sunnis--they had more freedoms in other ways under Saddam. Recent polling data reveals that Iraqis are losing confidence in democracy and fear of oppression is growing.

msnbc.msn.com...

Also, the Iraqi's do want elections, but they don't want to vote for the American-backed political parties that are being supported in the election. Moktada al-Sadr, the leader of the insurgency, is thinking about running, on the platform that he will immediately oust the Americans, and he would be able to unite the Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds on that premise alone, which would give him a majority of the vote if he does run. So our fight to bring democracy to Iraq will have them elect a leader that is as anti-American as al Qaeda. Not so rosy a picture, eh?

First of all, I was hoping your information would have come from more than one source since we don't have a strong presence of reporters in Iraq but anyways...

I for one am happy that many Iraqi's want to embrace freedom, I can't think of many countries that would embrace dictatorships in any form. But the 'free Iraq' spin that has been thrust on this war due to original plans and statements being proved false doesn't make this war any better in my eyes.

One thing that I wish people would admit to is the simple fact that this war was not started to spread Democracy in Iraq nor was freeing Iraqi's the main goal. That was a hoped for outcome that would make the other reasons seem even more justified.

Let's look at some of the statements made by our government officials and by Bush himself in the run up to this war:

"The first line of defense...should be a clear and classical statement of deterrence�if they do acquire WMD, their weapons will be unusable because any attempt to use them will bring national obliteration."

~ Condi Rice

"We are greatly concerned about any possible linkup between terrorists and regimes that have or seek weapons of mass destruction...In the case of Saddam Hussein, we've got a dictator who is clearly pursuing and already possesses some of these weapons.. A regime that hates America and everything we stand for must never be permitted to threaten America with weapons of mass destruction."

~ Dick Cheney

"Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. "

~ Dick Cheney

"There is already a mountain of evidence that Saddam Hussein is gathering weapons for the purpose of using them. And adding additional information is like adding a foot to Mount Everest."

~ Ari Fleischer

"We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud."

~ Condi Rice

"Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons. "

~ George Bush

"Iraq has stockpiled biological and chemical weapons, and is rebuilding the facilities used to make more of those weapons. We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons -- the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have."

~ George Bush

"I am absolutely convinced, based on the information that�s been given to me, that the weapon of mass destruction which can kill more people than an atomic bomb -- that is, biological weapons -- is in the hands of the leadership of Iraq."

~ Bill Frist

"One of our top objectives is to find and destroy the WMD. There are a number of sites."

~ Victoria Clark

"I have no doubt we're going to find big stores of weapons of mass destruction."

~ Kenneth Adelman

"We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat. "

~ Donald Rumsfeld

Those were the reasons why we went to war with Iraq. The idea that freeing Iraq was the main objective was never used as a main argument by our leaders or by the people drumming up support for this war. It was only after everything they said was either proved false or based on outdated, even forged, data did a free Iraq and Democracy for its people become the focal point for justification.

By saying so it would imply that George Bush made some grand statement in his inauguration speech that freeing the people of Iraq should be paramount in America's goals for the following four years. If he had said that he wanted to spend untold billions of dollars to oust Saddam and restore freedom to Iraq without there being a threat to us, there is no way that the American public would have gone for it. This war has been spun so badly off course from its original intent that the only argument that can be used to make us feel better as a nation is the idea that we are freeing them. That's a wonderful goal, don't get me wrong, but it was not Bush or what anyone else initially cared about deep down in the beginning. Our leaders and the people who supported this war among the citizenry of our country sold and defended this war as a fight for our survival as a nation from a tyrannical dictator bent on using WMD's to destroy us or to supply to terrorist groups like Al Quida. Now that link with terrorists is even being reluctantly retracted by Rumsfeld himself:

www.msnbc.msn.com...

So, yes, be proud America because no matter the hypocrisy that our government represents, individual Americans always try to rise to the occassion whether it be in a situation of our own creation or a natural disaster. We have always been a nation of individuals who give as much...well almost give as much as we take from the world.

But make no mistake, this war was not a selfless act on our parts to free Iraq. We were selfish in our goals to protect ourselves first and foremost regardless of the cost and Bush's policy of pre-empitve attacks to achieve this goal should serve as proof of that idea. Meanwhile, other nations like Tibet, North Korea, etc. continue to languish under oppressive regimes that limit their rights and spread suffering continuously.

The last time U.S. troops were committed to a region of the world to ease suffering and restore freedom to a group of people guess who opposed such actions? George Bush and Republicans. The action? Kosovo:

"'The Clinton-Gore administration has failed to instill trust in Congress and the American people when it comes to our military and deployment of troops overseas, but the governor does not believe this provision is the way to resolve the lack of presidential leadership,' Scott McClellan, a spokesman for Mr. Bush, said. 'Governor Bush views it as a legislative overreach on powers of the presidency.'"

Eric Schmitt adds (New York Times, 5/19/00, pp. 1, 10) that "In a victory for the Clinton administration, the Senate...narrowly rejected a measure to set a deadline for withdrawing American ground troops from Kosovo. Gov. George W. Bush of Texas had also criticized the measure, but even so 40 Republicans voted for it."

And it got even better...

Two weeks ago, House Republicans voted overwhelmingly against allowing American troops to participate in any NATO peacekeeping mission in Kosovo. This week many Senate Republicans were even opposing NATO air strikes against Serb forces, right up until President Clinton announced plans to begin them. Many Republicans clearly believed they could score political points against the President by playing on the nervousness and confusion of the American public.

Despite unmistakable evidence of renewed ethnic cleansing by Serb forces under the command of Slobodan Milosevic, the Yugoslav President, leading Republicans expressed indifference or worse.

Senator Don Nickles of Oklahoma said last week that he would oppose a NATO bombing campaign "unless and until the Serbs really begin a very significant massacre against the people in Kosovo." Medium-sized massacres, presumably, are acceptable.

Many Republicans even voiced concern that an attack on Serb forces would violate Yugoslavia's sovereignty, as if Belgrade had a legal right to commit genocide so long as it did so within its national boundaries. And almost all Republicans raised the cry of "body bags" and "quagmires" -- once again treating Mr. Milosevic as if he were a 600-pound gorilla instead of a bully and coward who in the past has quaked at the first sign of real military action.

Apparently many Republicans forgot that they made the same dire threats before the intervention in Bosnia three years ago and were proved utterly wrong. After three years, not a single American soldier has died in combat in Bosnia. Mostly, though, Republicans have adopted a Neville Chamberlain attitude toward the population of Kosovo, yet another distant people whose fate need not concern us.

"We don't have an obligation to send our men and women of the military in every time there's a humanitarian problem in this world, or a civil strife, or a revolution in a country," said Senator Pete Domenici of New Mexico. But what about when the "humanitarian problem" occurs in Europe and when NATO, the alliance we lead, decides to act?

www.newamericancentury.org...

So, apparently, it depends on who is President and who wants to be President that determines what actions the Republicans deem worthy of sending troops. I think we need to stop ignoring our own miscalculations and dependence on those miscalculations before the war and using 'Iraqi freedom' to justify the end result. The fact that Iraq may end up, and I stress the word 'may' because many people don't want a theocracy in Iran either but that doesn't mean it won't continue nor does it mean one won't sprout up in Iraq still, a free Democracy is our only hope at salvaging any form of respect from the world in the future. That and ousting George Bush in November.


[edit on 103131p://111 by Weller]

Myth1: We are Forcing Democracy on the Iraqis.
The questions asked there describe the system in Iran.

Myth2: Iraqis want an Islamic theocracy.
The poll about whether they want an Islamic Theocracy was conducted back in December 2003 and it looked like the most popular form of government was an Islamic political party.

Myth3: Iraqis want the Coalition Forces to leave immediately.
The poll on whether coalition forces should leave immediately was conducted back in May and almost half of the Iraqis said they should leave immediately.
45% wanted them to stay until a government was elected. This was before the handover of power to the interim government in June.
I would like to know how high it is now.

Myth4: The situation in Iraq would be going better if the United States had gotten United Nations support.
They don't like the UN because of the UN sanctions imposed upon them at the request of the first Bush administration.

Myth5: Since we did not find weapons of mass destruction, going into Iraq was a waste.
The number of people in mass graves, seems to have been greatly exaggerated. This was admitted by Tony Blair.

Myth6: The insurgency in Iraq is a popular uprising.
Most of these polls are from September of 2003.
The situation has changed a lot since then.
I would like to see more up to date polls.


[edit on 4-10-2004 by AceOfBase]

It's is funny that many Iraqis does not have a clue as who their candidates and political leaders are right now, because they were not elected by the people.

I will love to see Al-Sadr run for PM of his country and be elected by his own people.

Originally posted by marg6043
It's is funny that many Iraqis does not have a clue as who their candidates and political leaders are right now, because they were not elected by the people.

I will love to see Al-Sadr run for PM of his country and be elected by his own people.

Well if that happens then so be it, but keep in mind, the Sunni's and Kurds will NOT vote for him.......

you forgot that the Kurds are all in their littler world in the north and they want autonomy so they care less who becomes the next Iraqi leader as long as they are left alone.

They have an army 80,000 strong and ready to defend themself is necessary they are polite to the Americans but they don't want them to hang around to much in their lands.

Originally posted by marg6043
you forgot that the Kurds are all in their littler world in the north and they want autonomy so they care less who becomes the next Iraqi leader as long as they are left alone.

They have an army 80,000 strong and ready to defend themself is necessary they are polite to the Americans but they don't want them to hang around to much in their lands.

YOu are correct..............

Originally posted by lmgnyc

Umm, hate to burst your bubble, but Mr. Stephen Moore is one half of Gorton Moore International, the Political Consulting Firm responsible for getting Arnold Schwazeneggar and variety of other Republican conservatives elected in California.

Why is it that if a Democrat happens to win an election, it is a "spontaneous outpouring of popular support," but if a republican wins, then a spin doctor "got them elected?"

That kind of an attitude shows a real contempt for the people who inhabit THIS democracy, as if their votes only matter if they support YOUR fellow.

I am always amazed at the degree of comtempt that liberals have for their fellow citizens. At times it almost rises to the level of hatred, I suppose because the "little people" insist on thinking for themselves.

Would it be such a bad thing if even a portion of Iraqis thought the US was doing a responsible job? Would that be so horrible?

The original poster is right. ATS is mainly for the left. Bring up anything un "progressive" and it gets ugly very quick.

Iraqis don't understand this argument. They point out that Saddam was a weapon of mass destruction.

I don't care how reliable this source is, this is an excellent quote.

Originally posted by edsinger
Lets see 25 views and NO replies, that woudl be about right for a left leaning audience....wouldnt you say?

PS. I wonder if they even followed the links to the vote results?

I think it's about right for an assortment of nonsense - I won't be opening another one of these threads again. You have no concept of your audience at all and probably insulted at least 22 of your 25 "viewers". The inanity in your logic about "they" is self-evident... who the hell would be the "you" you are appealing to, and why didn't your "you" respond either?

Bye bye birdie!

Originally posted by dr_strangecraft

Why is it that if a Democrat happens to win an election, it is a "spontaneous outpouring of popular support," but if a republican wins, then a spin doctor "got them elected?"

That kind of an attitude shows a real contempt for the people who inhabit THIS democracy, as if their votes only matter if they support YOUR fellow.

I am always amazed at the degree of comtempt that liberals have for their fellow citizens. At times it almost rises to the level of hatred, I suppose because the "little people" insist on thinking for themselves.

Would it be such a bad thing if even a portion of Iraqis thought the US was doing a responsible job? Would that be so horrible?

The original poster is right. ATS is mainly for the left. Bring up anything un "progressive" and it gets ugly very quick.

Before you launched into your diatribe, did you happen to READ the source information or my post? It doesn't in any way shape or form reflect the current status of Iraq--most of it is OLD information. The polls were from last year. In addition, the data was interpreted incorrectly to make it seem positive (yay! 85%of Iraqi's want us to leave in 3 months!) Add the fact that it was put together by a conservative political operative makes the motive for publishing this information suspicious.

Every global news outlet is reporting that the situation in Iraq is not so great--yet the only sources that are consistently positive about Iraq are Bush, Rumsfeld and Allawi. Why do you believe them? Don't you think that they have a vested interest in making Americans believe that everything is just fine?

I do have a contempt for people trying to pass off propaganda for fact and those that spam this forum with junk information. ATS is certainly not for the left--I think that there is an equal mix of liberals and conservatives, which is why there is always a debate. If you are looking for a right-wing love fest, this isn't the place for you.

So. Mine is a diatribe. I wasn't even looking at the facile post at the top of the thread, but rather your turn of phrase about how some consulting firm "got them elected."

You don't apply that kind of Rhetoric to St. Clinton, although he relied on them as heavily as anyone.

You go into attack stance if anyone says anything. I've read your scribblings for quite a while, and never see you give a 'point taken,' or any other admission of someone else's right to continue sucking air on the same planet with you.

I guess when all the conservatives give up and go someplace else, you'll feel victorious.

You can't even be civil, can you?



The sad thing is being conservative IS inflammatory politics

The United States president's responsibility is to protect THIS nation and THIS nations's freedoms.

The irresponsible actions in Iraq in an effort by the OIL DEAD-ENDERS in the WHITEHOUSE have resulted in the creation of a sactuary for terrorists and a breeding ground for a whole new generation of American Hating terrorists.

A Taliban-like regime now rules Fallujah. Mr. RUMSFELD acknowledged that it is the base of Abu Musab Zarqawi, a Jordanian terrorist with ties to al Qaeda . . . The Zarqawi organization, . . . , has made Fallujah the most open and dangerous SANCTUARY for Islamic terrorism since Osama bin Laden was driven from Afghanistan.

www.washingtonpost.com...
Bush and the Whitehouse support terrorism. True American loving patriots do not support the mercenary whitehouse.

edit: for link

[edit on 5-10-2004 by slank]