Talk:Operation Truth

Once again, I have to protest the unfair labeling of this organization as a "fake" or "flake" antiwar organization. There is absolutely no evidence presented that supports this contention. Operation Truth has not and does not purport to be an antiwar organization and it would appear that Stan Goff is the ONLY one who has expressed that sentiment.

OT clearly has identified itself since August 2004 as an advocacy group for U.S. soldiers and veterans of the war in Iraq. Unless some proof can be offered that this label of "fake" and "flake" is accurate, I respectfully request that it be removed. An opinion expressed by a majority of one does not a label make.

Artificial Intelligence 11:53, 6 Apr 2005 (EDT)

--Hugh Manatee 07:46, 7 Apr 2005 (EDT) I agree with AI, they aren't antiwar, but they are pro veteran, and are doing good things. The war sickness is here, and it is just at its onset. This time the pandemic will very bad. Look at this damn war, and the less than honourable DC leadership that have tarnished by proxy the members of the military, and as is the usual, the ones who made the false claims of cause for war, who abrogated the Geneva conventions and made public pronouncements that seemed to imply their belief that the "illegal combatants" were less than human. This is the headwaters for the abuses that occurred with such frequency, and still the arrogant wooden heads don't get it, as they kidnap people from allied countries, as they ship prisoners off with a wink and a nod to states run by devils.

Goff and Rieckhoff are both right and wrong in their analysis, The Ft. Benning group were not anti-soldier and Reickhoff knows this. They have many freshly retired vets, family and spouses of active soldiers, and widows, relatives and friends of some killed in the Iraq war. It is wrong to portray them as anti vet, just because Reickhoff doesn't like their choice of place to protest, and disagrees with their politics.

Goff is wrong too. He knows that operation truth has never claimed outright to be anti Iraq war, he knows what their stated goals are. What he is pissed about is the unjustified attack by Rieckhoff, and his increasing belief that the democrats do not represent the people, any more that the big circus tent of republican inclusion in anyway represents Christine Todd Whitman, Rudy G., McCain or the Kindergarten cop barbarian.

Thanks, Hugh, for your input.

My ref to Goff and military retirement pay and benefits was intended to point out that he takes willingly with one hand what he so readily casts aside as offensive ... capitalism ... with the other, and willingly, for over 26 years, served the "imperialist" agenda, while carrying out all the nasty little tasks he was told to do.

As for Rieckhoff, I have seen nothing so far that states that his cause is any other than what he claims .... advocacy. Other than the far right claiming he was a Democratic pawn and his organization a Democratic shell game, which is just business as usual, Goff is the only one who seeks to discredit OT.

As I understand it, dissenting opinions in wiki-land are invited and it has been suggested that they be addressed in a separate article, if need be. Those who feel OT deserves different treatment can do so at Operation Truth: A "fake" or "flake" organization, or something to that effect.

Attaching the category label to the article is unfair. Prove it or remove it.

Artificial Intelligence 08:39, 7 Apr 2005 (EDT)

- I'd let this one pass while working on other stuff but I agree with AI -- I don't think framing articles on organisations as "fake or flake" is really consistent with an attempt to be 'fair and accurate'. Nor is it likely to be appreciated by readers wanting basic profile information. I donlt think it reasonable to criticise a group for being anti-war if they have never proclaimed they are. Indeed I would have thought it would be surprising if a vet's organisation was explicitly against the war given the constituency they are representing/working with. I'll have a check of those refs Hugh dug up but they look helpful in explaining the context of Goff's reaction. And I think Hugh's point of elevating a largely rhethorical clash to being the central point of the profile is the best way to go. So when I get a chance what I am proposing is to:
 * remove the fake or flate article/category
 * condense the Goff stuff right down but leave the link to his comments so if people want to find them they can; and
 * add the context and the refs for the Goff comments from the links Hugh found.--Bob Burton 16:31, 10 Apr 2005 (EDT)

For whatever reason -- which I fail to comprehend -- this article has been reverted to return it to the unjustified "Fake or Flake" category. Personal bias should not dominate over sincere collective opposition. Artificial Intelligence 09:46, 26 Apr 2005 (EDT)

April 26, 2005 .... M Operation Truth; 09:35. . Antidotto (Talk) (reverted a few of the previous changes to this article.)

add your own little category as you see fit
AI: add your own little category as you see fit – just leave the flake or fake category in. (I already mada a concession -- they now only are Fake OR Flake instead of AND.

I still think OT and EPIC are flakes and the recent interviews on DemocracyNow confirm that. I also have trouble finding that both CNN and Fox use OT/EPIC as sources for "anti-war commentary"... If they were anywhere near critical they wouldnt be used.

Antidotto 09:58, 26 Apr 2005 (EDT)

Apparently there is a separate agenda afoot here other than to be informative in this article, which, again I fail to understand. However, using the description stated for the "Fake or Flake" category, it reads thusly


 * "There are several organizations that indicate a critical posture pertaining the US-Iraq 2003 war. However, a closer examination reveals that these organizations are not anti-war and that their message is confused or even detrimental to the anti-war cause." [emphasis added]

Operation Truth has NEVER, to the best of my knowledge called itself or its mission anti-war and its message is quite clear. No evidence has been presented to illustrate that Operation Truth has done anything detrimental to the antiwar cause ... unless supporting the needs of the veterans is considered "detrimental".

Based on the definition stated alone, this one organization does not conform to the category's definition.

Additionally, it is difficult to see how the parameters set forth (below) for the category would render all -- that is, the TWO -- listed organizations "Fake or Flake" ...
 * The main problems with these organizations are:
 * 1) They did not oppose the war, but may now only be critical of how the US government handles military veterans rights and interests.
 * 2) They may have opposed the war, but now favor a US military role in Iraq and a continuation of the occupation
 * 3) These organizations may also counteract or obstruct the activities or stance of legitimate anti-war groups
 * 4) These organizations may also denigrate activists strongly opposed to the war, e.g., red-baiting activists

By the numbers:
 * 1. Not opposing the war but being critical of how the "US government handles military veterans rights and interests" has nothing whatsoever to do with an organization being "Fake or Flake."
 * 2. Opposing the war but favoring a "US military role in Iraq and a continuation of the occupation" may appear contradictory but does not rise to the level of being "Fake or Flake". Just because an organization does not protest against the war does not render invalid its efforts on behalf of the veterans who have been sent there to fight it. OT's position is not in support of fighting in or continuing to fight the war, it advocates on behalf of the soldiers ... period.
 * 3. Not being in support of the actions of antiwar groups does not render an organization "Fake or Flake." Also, who gets to decide whether an antiwar group -- or any other -- is "legitimate"? I don't think that that is a role for SW.
 * 4. Standing in opposition to another group's ideology also is not "Fake or Flake" ... it's called freedom of speech.

What I do personally find "Fake or Flake" is the insistence of perpetuating a "Fake and Flake" category. I do not see that this serves SW in any positive way. Artificial Intelligence 11:44, 26 Apr 2005 (EDT)

- I agree - I don't see the "Fake or Flake Category" as being useful and prefer to see more neutral category titles that would be accepted as an accurate category by those within them. If our policy is to be 'fair and accurate' arbitrarily labelling groups 'fake or flake' is unneccessarily perjorative. --Bob Burton 16:57, 26 Apr 2005 (EDT)