Scott Walker: We might have to take military action on Day One

And the race continues in the GOP for first place in far right nutsville. It looks like Scott Walker is well on his way to taking that position from Trump:

A dispute has erupted between Scott Walker and Jeb Bush over how to handle the task of undoing Obama’s Iran deal as president, with Bush hinting that Walker is approaching the issue with a lack of maturity, and Walker suggesting that Bush is not zealous enough about confronting the enemy.

Walker is also saying that it’s “very possible” the next president will have to take military action on Day One of his presidency — though it’s unclear whether he means against Iran in particular, or more generally.

www.washingtonpost.com...

Let's not be coy here, of course he means Iran. I mean he needs to make sure his military contractor buddies are looked after in the coming years. And please, I don't want to hear the whole excuse about this not being a full scale war or anything. Any attack on Iran is a full scale war, and the consequences will be far beyond Iraq. But what does Walker care? What do his supporters care? They'll risk as many troops and tax payer $$$$ to fulfill their ideological goals (and personal financial goals for the politicians). Who cares??

People will never learn. If this idiot is voted in we get what we deserve.

a reply to: Southern Guardian

Hand Walker a rifle and have him lead the way. We have a lot of politicians who are chicken hawks. The guy never served in the military, yet on the first day of office he wants to put our troops in harms way. If Israel or their neighbors have problems with Iran, let them deal with it!! I'm tired of seeing our young men and women coming home maimed or killed. When are we going to stop fighting everyone's battles and start taking care of Americans here at home?

a reply to: Southern Guardian

This is why Walker scares me. He is the scariest of the field of GOP runners, although several of them would probably be absolutely *delighted* to have the US military at their command so they could play their war games on the world stage.

Very scary!

a reply to: Southern Guardian

It's like the GOP is in a giant contest to outcrazy each other.

"Well if you think THAT guy is crazy, wait until you see MY policies. My policies make the unibomber appear to be an upstanding member of society!"
-Any Republican candidate.

I don't think any of these nuts knows anyone that died or was wounded in IRAQ or Afghanistan. If they did, they wouldn't be so quick to send more of our young people over there to be disfigured and disabled. It's horrible.

Secondly. I don't think they realize that It was an international deal with Iran. It wasn't Obama operating in a bubble. There was UN, European union, Russia, China, France, UK all involved in this deal and these talks.

Thirdly. They do realize that Israel has one of the best Armed Forces and Intelligence agency's in the world right? with at least 80 nuclear bombs?

The thing that gets me the most is not what Walker wants to do, this has been fairly apparent for a while. It's that Walker's position on this is supported by a large segment of the voting population. The same people who rallied behind Bush and his 'mission accomplished' banner back in 2003, they're all rallying behind some war against Iran and against this deal. And no, there's no fence sitting on this issue. Sanctions have clearly not worked as multiple sanctions had been mounted against Iran since 1979. They had not made a single ounce of difference at all. It's either diplomacy, or some kind of military action. Because it's Obama that supports diplomacy, this is enough for many to beat the drums of war. What a bunch of tools.

a reply to: Southern Guardian

If a Republican gets in office and declares war on Iran, I think I may have to renounce my citizenship because such an action would be a war crime.

go to war with what...

what a putz...

our manpower is thin and many are getting tired of not seeing family...

Looks like Walker has been brought and paid for by Israel and the defence sector.

Shame as I sort of found him one of the more tolerable candidates.


Looks like US election 2016 will just be another Game of tards.

Well, if he just uses drones, it'll be okay, right?

I mean, it's just drones.

a reply to: beezzer

Nope, and barry shouldn't use them so much either.

a reply to: Southern Guardian
Scary.
I don't like any of the candidates that I have seen yet, from any party.

a reply to: beezzer

Who here said anything about drones Beezzer? I don't support the use of drones we currently have in Pakistan or Afghanistan. Do you? Do you support the use of drones Beezzer? Actually, why don't you let use know where you stand on this issue. War with Iran or diplomacy?

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: beezzer

Nope, and barry shouldn't use them so much either.

When Barry uses them, it's an act of war?

a reply to: beezzer

Why do I feel like that question is loaded as all hell?

My answer would be yes no and maybe

I think that if any country used drones on us like we do on others then we would call for war.

I wish I wasn't only 5 the first time Reagan was running for office because I'll bet he had some things to say about military action and Iran, too, and my memory is good enough to remember that massive war we DIDN'T end up having.

originally posted by: beezzer

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: beezzer

Nope, and barry shouldn't use them so much either.

When Barry uses them, it's an act of war?

Would depend.


If a allied country has asked for help no.

But some of the incursions into pakistan have been without permission and is blatently wrong and a act of war.

In fairness, I think "ready for military action on Day One" is a basic truth of the presidency these days. The way Walker worded it, however, leaves a lot to be desired. Had he been actually saying that the world is a violent place and there's no room for a presidential learning curve should an attack occur on day one, he should have made a better effort to phrase it that way. Some still would have bristled, but I think the majority of American voters would acknowledge that concept as being important in future presidents.

a reply to: Sremmos80

Not to mention the Pakistani and Afghan governments allow the use of drones. They couldn't care less about the losses of life caused by drones within their own countries. So it's evidently not an act of war. But some people need to make strawman arguments to deflect away from idiot politicians like Walker (and whether or not they support what he says).

originally posted by: Southern Guardian
a reply to: beezzer

Who here said anything about drones Beezzer? I don't support the use of drones we currently have in Pakistan or Afghanistan. Do you? Do you support the use of drones Beezzer? Actually, why don't you let use know where you stand on this issue. War with Iran or diplomacy?

What? And interrupt the bash of war-mongering Walker?

Look, I see everyone and their cousins making excuses for Obama and his obscene use of drones. I don't feel the need to repeat myself on the utter futility or my disgust over their use.

Iran?

My thoughts on Iran?

(laughs)

To discuss what to do about Iran is about as useful as discussing what fire alarms to buy when your house in engulfed with flames.

Obama has orchistrated carte blanch for Iran. The only theatre left to discuss is whether or not the US would attack Israel for attacking Iran!