Comments on: Marines are “unwelcome intruders”

By: ASP's 2008 Year In Review « A Soldier's Perspective

ASP's 2008 Year In Review « A Soldier's Perspective — Mon, 19 Apr 2010 18:05:41 +0000

[...] free speech did everything possible to ensure the Marines didn't get those same freedoms. The city council labeled them "unwelcome intruders" and things just went downhill from there. Thank goodness for Move America Forward for standing up [...]

By: sealpatriot

sealpatriot — Fri, 08 Feb 2008 17:44:58 +0000

“Insurgent/civil war with out end means no governing
worrthy of the name.”

There isn’t a civil war in Iraq, nor has one ever started.

By: CJ

CJ — Fri, 08 Feb 2008 00:45:37 +0000

Congratulations, Ken!! you’ve succeeded in finding more pessimistic news. I’d hate to be married to you or have you as a friend. I hope you aren’t in contact with Soldiers on a daily or regular basis. Hanging around you would most likely be a reason the suicide rate is so high today. I wonder if you even know how to smile? Of course you do, silly me. You smile every time bad news comes out of Iraq.

I wonder if THIS has anything to do with your article? Don’t you think you should be damning Iran instead of your own country? That is, if you ARE an American…

By: Ken Hoop

Ken Hoop — Fri, 08 Feb 2008 00:15:14 +0000

NPR reporter says Iraq remains `in shambles’
Wednesday, February 06, 2008
BY SARA WAISANEN

swaisanen@kalamazoogazette.com

KALAMAZOO — Prospects are dim for the U.S. military to get out of Iraq anytime soon, National Public Radio foreign correspondent Deborah Amos told an audience Tuesday at Western Michigan University.

Amos, who covers Iraq for NPR, also said our focus has largely strayed from the conflict there. “The discussion of Iraq isn’t as clear as it should be,” Amos said during a talk at WMU’s Shaw Theatre.

“The economy has seized us,” she said. “We’ve forgotten about Iraq.”

Amos, who spends most of her time in the Middle East, said she was surprised to see that Iraq was ranked fifth among top issues identified by people in Florida during the presidential primary.

“Nine hundred seventy-three fatalities later … and the war is no longer the most pressing issue in the presidential campaign,” she said. “Iraqis are no closer to reconciliation than the first day we were there.”

Amos said that many Iraqis capable of transforming the country have left. “Two million people have fled Iraq,” which she described as “still in shambles.”

The NPR correspondent described witnessing Iraqis watching helplessly as neighbors get taken away by armed men. “You could get blown up by a car bomb or just disappear,” she said of dangers people there face.

Iraqis don’t anticipate the war ending for at least a decade, Amos said.

“The picture she paints is really hopeless,” Kalamazoo College Interim Provost Jan Tobochnik said Tuesday after listening to Amos. “We’re going to be in there for a long, long time.”

Max Clark, a WMU senior majoring in political science and creative writing, said he thinks it will take a catastrophe to generate more concern among Americans. “We would need either a backslide in violence or a collapse in the military,” Clark said.

This description begs little extrapolation. No reconciliation, no government
worthy of the name. Insurgent/civil war with out end means no governing
worrthy of the name.

By: Ken Hoop

Ken Hoop — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 00:06:09 +0000

Your comment was deleted by CJ because it has NOTHING to do with topic and you stray into the world of crazy. For the record, though, we are NOT occupying Iraq any longer. We are there as guests assisting at the request of the sovereign Iraqi government.

By: Ken Hoop

Ken Hoop — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 00:03:24 +0000

The Iraqi overwhelming majority does not consider an oppressive and ineffectual occupation to constitute “rule of law” and your a priori imperialist attitude is the kind which dooms troops to interminable no-win war.

As for Israel after the right of return in granted to all Palestinian families expelled in 1948 with deed to the land, a plebiscite should be held as to
how the area in question should be governed. American foreign aid should be cut off. The majority will then decide the answer to your question.

By: SSgtJ

SSgtJ — Tue, 05 Feb 2008 01:46:48 +0000

Ken, at least you gave me a partial answer. Does that mean we should take a poll in Israel to see if the Jews want to stay there?

Please note, that the polls you talk about are not exactly representative. In 2004, few pollsters had actually set foot outside of their “safe” havens. I trust the people on the ground not the biased CBS, MSNBC, NYT. Was Saddam actually supported by all of the people who “voted” for him in his last “re-election”?

Do you think any of the “polls” were influenced by the accusation that we were going to steal their Oil?

But let’s say that your numbers were representative back in 2004, and suppose they are representative now also … does that mean the rule of law is to be suspended so mob rule can take over?

I ask AGAIN, who do we turn Iraq over to, if not the elected government?

By: Ken Hoop

Ken Hoop — Mon, 04 Feb 2008 22:20:07 +0000

I rather favor polls of Iraqi majorities in deciding whether we morally occupy Iraq currently, over coerced UN ex post facto “decisions.”
And when majorities,since 2004,have registered as approving of insurgent attacks on US troops, provided said attacks don’t endanger civilians,
the verdict has long been in. I include CBS, MSNBC, Zogby, Gallup
and sundry other polls taken since 2004.
Collaborating governments with little if any extra-Green Zone power and whose members fear retribution upon US departure are no substitute
for poll samples, which indicate only the Kurds enjoy US presence.

I take no position on the Berkeley council action. EG,I oppose abortion rights, excepting only rape and incest and believe the issue should be up to the states. Which means if New York decides on a pro-abort set of laws in a state wherein I do not reside, I take no position on it.

By: sue

sue — Mon, 04 Feb 2008 01:17:31 +0000

I think THEY use the extrapolation method!! lol I think, therefore I am. It WAS, therefore it IS.

By: SSgtJ

SSgtJ — Mon, 04 Feb 2008 00:17:01 +0000

“They” keep saying that we are in Iraq illegally.

Does that mean that the United Nations Mandate authorizing our CURRENT presence in Iraq is an illegal document? You know, the one which has been UNANIMOUSLY authorized and re-authorized by the UN Security Council.

Does that mean that the Currently Elected Iraq Government who have requested our Current Presence, is also illegal?

Who do “They” suggest we turn Iraq over to, Al Sadr?

One MIGHT argue the original invasion was illegal, but how can “THEY” call the Current Presence Illegal?