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

originally posted by: jimmyx

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?

who's barry????......goldwater?...I thought he was dead

Barry Neusbaum, from long Island. Has a nice deli. Still lives with his mother. But he makes a mean corned beef.

great another Neo Con psycho killer for President

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic
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!

Lindsay Graham is also on record as saying that he would have the Capital police round up everyone in Congress and MAKE them stay until they vote to restore all the cuts to military spending. Walker is only saying that he's prepared for action.

GIve it some time. Walker will probably walk his statement back like he's done with his stand on gay Boy Scout leaders and the item hidden in the State budget that would have severely restricted attempts to access information regarding any kind of legislative action. What's even scarier, Walker tends to sign legislation in private and then announce it after the damage is done, like defunding Planned Parenthood, and bizarrely, banning microbeads from soaps and skin care products.

Walker terrifies me, honestly. He blindly does whatever the Koch brothers and ALEC tell him to do and when he does make a personal statement, he backs down from it and says something else.
I've seen what he's done right here in Wisconsin and amazingly, how he keeps the support of just enough voters to keep him in office. By the way, DO NOT EVER say to my face "well, Wisconsin got what it deserves, they voted for him. No, 52% voted him. I was among the 48% who didn't and watched while he gutted environmental protections, except for banning microbeads of course, continued the attack on women's rights and healthcare, cut millions from public education, the University college system, yet approved vouchers so parents can take their kids out of already struggling public schools and put them in mostly religious affiliated private schools. The thought of the damage he could do to the entire country as President make me shake in my boots.

a reply to: beezzer

I would hardly call myself a ardent supporter of Obama.

In fact I have been pretty critical of him from day one I joined ATS.

Granted I dont think him your worst ever president. But I certainly dont think very highly of him.

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: Southern Guardian

I don't see what good, war with Iran would do for US interests personally.

But Walker will only blame Obama for any actions he takes.

And for the record?

Obama has bombed;
Afghanistan,
Iraq,
Pakistan,
Somalia,
Yemen,
Libya and Syria with drones.

You forgot turkey

originally posted by: crazyewok
a reply to: beezzer

I would hardly call myself a ardent supporter of Obama.

In fact I have been pretty critical of him from day one I joined ATS.

Granted I dont think him your worst ever president. But I certainly dont think very highly of him.

Fair enough.

But don't you see what's happening here?

Walker hasn't even won a debate and people are already branding him a mad-dog killer-president for reacting to (and I love this part) all of Obama's policies.

a reply to: beezzer

How much diplomacy is enough diplomacy? How much is too little, too much?

Considering we haven't used much of any diplomacy with Iran until recently, your question is irrelevant.

Now you can answer my question. What's the alternative to diplomacy Beezzer? Hmm?

Yeah, Obama was in the wrong for his use of drones.

Oh he was, and the next president will be wrong as well in his use of drones too. Are you going to be there to show your disgust as well? Or will you conveniently be absent or silent because they won't be Obama or Democrat?

Each president is responsible for their own actions.

Indeed. And Walker will be responsible for his actions if he gets into power. Will you be holding him accountable for his actions if this is the case? Or will you be using strawman to protect him from criticism?

No strawman. Unless you're willing to admit that you all used it for years in defending Obama.

Clearly you don't know the definition of strawman do you? Here, let me help you out:

A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument which was not advanced by that opponent.

At no point in the OP was there any mention of 'Obama' and 'drones'. The thread is about Walker and his position on Iran if he is to get into the whitehouse. You came on here swinging about talking about how liberals support Obama and his use of drones. Your posts about Obama's use of drones have nothing to do with the OP. But I know I know, you'd rather spend your time deflecting attention away from Walkers position and your position on this matter as it's too inconvenient to have to own up to it. Continue on with more strawman if you think this will help.

They'll ask the GOP contenders questions about things like this and spin their answers in the worst way they can. Hillary is the anointed one and how dare any of you forget it. Now all of you better just go pull those levers for her now.

Sad how easily manipulated you all are.

Heck the GOP candidate could be mute and they'd make his lack of answer out be both evidence of his lack intellect AND signs of deep inability to be honest and forthcoming and all of you here would buy because you've all been so heavily indoctrinated with the mass media Hegelian programming of Republican=evil and Democrat=good.

Scott Walker should just S.T.F.U.!

originally posted by: beezzer

originally posted by: crazyewok
a reply to: beezzer

I would hardly call myself a ardent supporter of Obama.

In fact I have been pretty critical of him from day one I joined ATS.

Granted I dont think him your worst ever president. But I certainly dont think very highly of him.

Fair enough.

But don't you see what's happening here?

Walker hasn't even won a debate and people are already branding him a mad-dog killer-president for reacting to (and I love this part) all of Obama's policies.

I'm sorry, at what point did Obama campaign on a platform of more war?

a reply to: Southern Guardian

Hmmm, I was thinking the same thing about Obama and his ilk.....

Simply put, you confuse rhetoric with deed. Reagan's rhetoric was very direct, very challenging to the then enemies of the U.S..

His actions led to the lessening of nuclear arms and that 'race'.

Walker has track record, he wins.... It's been a while since we've had a winner in the White House....

a reply to: Southern Guardian

If Walker becomes president he will only be able to act in the arena of diplomacy that Obama has created.

If Obama has created a sound, secure diplomatic relationship with Iran, then there will be no need to go to war.

If Obama has failed to create a sound diplomatic atmosphere with Iran, then Obama will have dictated Walker's actions towards Iran.

It's all on Obama, what Walker does.

If Obama bungles the job, is an inept ass, messes everything up, then Walker will have no choice BUT to attack Iran.

originally posted by: AshOnMyTomatoes

originally posted by: beezzer

originally posted by: crazyewok
a reply to: beezzer

I would hardly call myself a ardent supporter of Obama.

In fact I have been pretty critical of him from day one I joined ATS.

Granted I dont think him your worst ever president. But I certainly dont think very highly of him.

Fair enough.

But don't you see what's happening here?

Walker hasn't even won a debate and people are already branding him a mad-dog killer-president for reacting to (and I love this part) all of Obama's policies.

I'm sorry, at what point did Obama campaign on a platform of more war?

Obama campaigned on quitting Bush's war.

Walker may have no choice in continuing Obama's war.

originally posted by: Cheddarhead
I've seen what he's done right here in Wisconsin and amazingly, how he keeps the support of just enough voters to keep him in office.

I KNOW! I can't believe how many still support him after what he's done to your state!

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: Southern Guardian

If Walker becomes president he will only be able to act in the arena of diplomacy that Obama has created.

If Obama has created a sound, secure diplomatic relationship with Iran, then there will be no need to go to war.

If Obama has failed to create a sound diplomatic atmosphere with Iran, then Obama will have dictated Walker's actions towards Iran.

It's all on Obama, what Walker does.

If Obama bungles the job, is an inept ass, messes everything up, then Walker will have no choice BUT to attack Iran.

But don't forget that the IRAN deal was an international deal. UN, china, UK, France, European Union and Russia all in on the talks. Just like was can't blame Obama when gas prices drop, we also can't blame him entirely for this deal and we don't need a war with IRAN, like Walker Wants. He'd bomb Iran no matter what happens in the next year and a half. He really needs to talk to some of our IRAQ veterans and find out what war is really like.

a reply to: amazing

I'm not letting Obama off the hook.


Walker can only react to foreign policies of the past on Day One of his regime.

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: amazing

I'm not letting Obama off the hook.


Walker can only react to foreign policies of the past on Day One of his regime.

But what you don't realize is we would have the same IRAN deal if US wasn't in on the talks. It's not all US> Are you telling me that Russia and China just capitulated to the President, because they love him? LOL

There is no need to bomb IRAN and send in troops and would and kill thousands more of our Brave American soldiers, just because Walker is in the pocket of the Military Industrial complex. That lunatic must be stopped.

a reply to: burdman30ott6

True enough.

Those other countries did kill their fair share of Americans though, and we've managed to become, if not friends, certainly allies.

The world of politics makes for strange bedfellows. Quite honestly, I think we'd be better off with Iran as an ally than as the "bogeyman". With Iran, and Israel, both as regional allies? Who knows, we might actually be able to positively influence relations between these dogs in a manger?

'Tis unlikely, but so too did relations with Cuba not all that long ago.

a reply to: beezzer

I'm not letting Obama off the hook.


Walker can only react to foreign policies of the past on Day One of his regime.

Hold on, you're contradicting yourself here now. In one breath you complain that Obama's military actions are being unfairly blamed on Bush and not on Obama himself. You go on and on about this from the very first post on this thread. Then you post the above saying Walker's actions if he gets into the whitehouse will be on Obama? So if diplomacy is all fine, but Walker decides to declare war, it's still Obama's fault?

Hmm.

originally posted by: Southern Guardian
a reply to: beezzer

I'm not letting Obama off the hook.


Walker can only react to foreign policies of the past on Day One of his regime.

Hold on, you're contradicting yourself here now. In one breath you complain that Obama's military actions are being unfairly blamed on Bush and not on Obama himself. You go on and on about this from the very first post on this thread. Then you post the above saying Walker's actions if he gets into the whitehouse will be on Obama? So if diplomacy is all fine, but Walker decides to declare war, it's still Obama's fault?

Hmm.

Absolutely.

Why bother with reason and rational debate?

It hasn't worked while Obama has been in office. Everything from foreign policy to my granny's gout has been blamed on Bush.

I just thought I'd approach political debate the same way you do.