tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8213262.post2439143426007733193..comments2024-03-25T07:29:08.216-04:00Comments on 2 Political Junkies: Jack Kelly SundayMariahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10439330154875628083noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8213262.post-91417649259672998512010-06-28T00:06:56.048-04:002010-06-28T00:06:56.048-04:00CM, please tell me what Bush accomplished in Afgha...CM, please tell me what Bush accomplished in Afghanistan. C'mon, did he have eight years or not? Did Bush get Osama bin Laden? The Afghan's were happy to see in 2001, but by 2009 they were pretty tired of us killing civilians. In fact, what do *you* mean: "In addition, we should have hit Afghanistan early and hard." As far as suggesting turning large parts of Afghanistan into a parking lot, you are suggesting this now, during the Obama administration, not during the Bush administration. because you want to see Obama hated by the rest the world, the way Bush was/is. You just can't stand that, despite his flaws, Obama is a much better man and President than Bush was/is. <br /><br />And you have no issues re: Iraq? No WMD, Al Qaeda not being there until we went there, and they have not turned into a beacon of democracy for anyone. Talk about zero credibility. <br /><br />Conservatives really want to destroy the country/world, just to drag the Democrats down too. Really, zero patriotism.EdHeathhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09109361235271107574noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8213262.post-19934909372371170062010-06-27T19:45:32.509-04:002010-06-27T19:45:32.509-04:00Bush failed to accomplish anything..
Zero credib...<i>Bush failed to accomplish anything.. </i><br /><br />Zero credibility with that singular comment. You liberals continue to bash Bush loooong after Barack Hussein Obama took office. I had issues with Bush, domestic issues, principally the 1st $160B stimulus and TARP, but I have NO issues re: Irag.. In addition, we should have hit Afghanistan early and hard.<br /><br />BTW, Put me down for turning parts of Afghanistan into a parking lot. The Taliban has and continues to shelter Al Queda. War is messy. Deal with it.Conservative Mountaineerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00682687892115059220noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8213262.post-91333972356506626512010-06-27T17:47:33.794-04:002010-06-27T17:47:33.794-04:00Simplistically speaking, there are the two differe...Simplistically speaking, there are the two different types of wars: the conventional (nation-state against nation-state) and the ones that involve one nation-state and non-governmental opponents (unconventional). The latter type generally end up involving civilians as more or less direct participants (as opposed being unwilling participants in the first type). Unconventional warfare (often) involves enemies who hide among civilians. Obviously it would be safest for American foot soldiers to simple kill anyone they suspect of being an enemy, regardless of the risk to civilians. But as Dayvoe quotes McChrystal, every civilian killed could easily produce ten new enemies. <br /><br />My thought is that Kelly maybe understands the need for rules of engagement, but I suspect he really thinks (in his gut) that the Marines and special forces could wipe out Al Qaeda and the Taliban if they were simply let off the leash. And all "real" men would understand, if a few civilians got killed along the way, that the price had to be paid to destroy evil ("evil" defined here as those who have our way of life and want to kill all of us). <br /><br />I think Kelly resents the rules of engagement, because he thinks American soldiers feel the rules are dangerous to American soldiers. So, Kelly believes McChrystal is incompetent, because (as Kelly understands it) McChrystal is willing to allow American soldiers to be exposed to possible harm rather than risk Afghan civilian lives. Might make sense to an old line marine, but I don't think Kelly's fantasy alternative (which is admittedly only my speculation) has any chance of success either. <br /><br />So Kelly takes shots at Obama and shots at McChrystal, doesn't mention the prior eight years Bush failed to accomplish anything (which makes it that much more difficult for Obama & Co. to "win"). Now, I don't think Kelly is obliged to provide an alternative, but if he doesn't, the he is no better than a nihilist.EdHeathhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09109361235271107574noreply@blogger.com