Selene

Governor Scott Walker Should Be Running For President...

Recommended Posts

I heard this guy being interviewed on Sean Hannity's radio show the other day. He sounded like a hack, simpleton, and sleazy con-artist. Very inferior in mind and spirit to Rand Paul and Ted Cruz.

Yeah...and you, being as smart as you are, discerned this from one interview with that intellectual giant Sean Hannity?

I am properly impressed.

A...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks like Scott Walker may have some war plans in his back pocket. He has not ruled out 'boots on the ground' in Syria should he become Commander in Chief. It looks like he may have caught the mood of America as it changes -- at least on this one issue. But American boots on the ground in Syria is a different kind of war against ISIS ...

From an article at MSNBC:

When pressed to clarify whether he was endorsing putting “U.S. boots on the ground in Syria,” Walker responded, “No, I don’t think that is an immediate plan,” but said “I wouldn’t rule anything out.”

“I think when you have the lives of Americans at stake and our freedom-loving allies anywhere in the world, we have to be prepared to do things that don’t allow those measures, those attacks, those abuses to come to our shores,” Walker said.
Walker’s position is consistent with that of most Americans, according to an October NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll. Forty-one percent of respondents endorsed American combat troops on the ground in addition to airstrikes, while 35% said they favored airstrikes only. Fifteen percent of respondents advocated against military action to combat ISIS.
Just a month earlier, more Americans favored airstrikes only. According to the NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll, the increased support for ground troops was “fueled mostly by group that make up the GOP base,” including self-described Republicans, men over 50, white men, and seniors.

Walker mentions freedom-loving allied states who have lives at stake (in the war against ISIS). This makes sense outside the Middle East, for the only free country in the Middle-East/North Africa is Tunisia.

If the USA decides to add US combat troops to the mess in Syria in 2017, what does that mean for Syrian President Assad and his regime? Will the US troops be sent to battle Assad or ISIS or both? If ISIS is to be destroyed in Syria by US forces ... who will take up governance once it is removed? The US would then get in bed with its enemy Syria, or hand over military control to anti-ISIS rebels ... who are otherwise almost as unsavoury religious maniacs as is ISIS (Al-Nusra, Islamic Front, etc). The western-backed FSA is a teeny little rump compared to other forces.

To my eyes this is just the exact type of situation American ground forces should avoid (imagine a week where Hezbollah hits Israel from Syria, Israel bombs Syrian military convoys, Syria bombs its 'rebel' civilian areas, USA bombs ISIS hideouts, ISIS and allies unleash a wave of suicide attacks against other rebels, Kurds, Iraqi forces, Iranian revolutionary leaders are blown up near the Golan Heights.** Insert US troops exactly how or where?)

Maybe Walker is just saber-rattling for political effect.

It would be interesting to see what Walker has to say about Ukraine, what NATO should do to push back the Bear. In my opinion, Ukraine's war is the one that needs Western power in play, even though the Syria war is much much more destructive of human communities and lives.

Syria's messy civil war will resist any Western-backed military solution, I believe. So many actors are on the ground already, from Hezbollah, local militias, Saudi backed jihadis, Iranian and Iraqi militias and commanders, Turkish backed groups, Kurdish-Syrians, Kurdish-Iraqis (peshmerga) and so on -- to a thousand splinters -- the most maniacally religious units fed with money and arms by the Islamic States worthy of the name: Iran and Saudia Arabia (plus Qatar, Kuwait and the Emirates and NATO member Turkey).

Here is a picture of the Kurdish town of Kobane (Ayn al-Arab) after it was liberated from ISIS by coalition bombs and Kurdish YPD/YPG and FSA troops:

_80578755_kobane1.jpg

That is what victory looks like! Nobody -- freedom-loving or not -- is going home to this wreck until the war is over and reconstruction can begin.

But anyway, who is for US troops on the ground in Syria, besides our resident Muzzie Monkey killer Kyrel?

_____________________________________________

** it should be easy to imagine a week like this: it is what happened in the past week in Syria!

Adding US ground troops to this mixture seems about as wrong as wrong can be. Who is your enemy? Who is your friend?

Edited by william.scherk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But anyway, who is for US troops on the ground in Syria, besides our resident Muzzie Monkey killer Kyrel?

No one running for President of the United States on a major party ticket would "rule out" boots on the ground in any global confrontation.

As an American, I would not rule out any reaction to a threat that rose to a level that placed this country at risk.

Risk has a wide range of degrees.

A...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It would be interesting to see what Walker has to say about Ukraine, what NATO should do to push back the Bear. In my opinion, Ukraine's war is the one that needs Western power in play, even though the Syria war is much much more destructive of human communities and lives.

Quite so, William, if NATO is not going to intervene here, in this largely overlooked and disgustingly cynical war, then it will go down as useless and toothless. There is a place for sanctions, but not as a substitute for the implicit threat - and the eventual act - of retaliatory force. In this conflict the "separatists" make no bones about targeting civilians and cities with shellfire.

"The only free country in the Middle East/North Africa is Tunisia".[WSS]

Mm?

With your reputation as fact-ferret, this was a glaring error. There is another country, you know. One which has been free for its polyglot of citizens for several decades, without internal conflict, or rule of generals or rule by religion - and with democracy, well entrenched. Exactly 4 years after its "Spring", Tunisia has a ways to go to match that record.

Unless, of course, for you, it might be that Israel is unfree because it will not include Palestine?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ukraine? Why does US foreign policy need Ukraine? And why does it need a NATO? Why economic war against Russia? WTF is going on?

--Brant

first the gasoline then the matches

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Putin is going a-empire building - planning a Russian Caliphate, you could say - with a majority of Russians behind him. Stop him here, now better than later.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Putin is going a-empire building - planning a Russian Caliphate, you could say - with a majority of Russians behind him. Stop him here, now better than later.

? What nonsense. Russia has a tiny economy which cannot support that. In any case, the bigger this "Caliphate" gets the less sustainable it will be. This is really all about Ukraine, especially eastern Ukraine, however delusional any Russian or conglomeration of Russians might be.

The same operational principle will reduce US hegemonic Caliphate-able ambitions, which will take a longer time as they are mostly represented by the US navy. We're just following what happened to Great Britain by a hundred years. We don't have any talent for colonial administration so we substitute perpetual jejune warfare. Better hope for less war for the future alternative will be a big war as there's no stability in what is going on right now. A big war is nuclear war. The day of massive armies clashing is gone and done. Provoking literal war with economic war is an old game most effectively used against Japan ("Remember Pearl Harbor!").

--Brant

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Delusions of grandeur never have been rational. Along with that, it's necessary to understand the self-sacrificial ethos Russians have never been short of.

In the mean time, the Ukraine is still showing a resolve to fight back, even at ongoing loss to its citizens. There are going to be mounting deaths, perhaps until NATO lays down the law and declares a firm red line.

If Russian "separatists" don't want to live in East Ukraine, they are free to leave for Russia. So there's no justification for this war, except for further Russian land grab.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Delusions of grandeur never have been rational. It's necessary to understand the self-sacrificial ethos Russians have never been short of.

In the mean time, the Ukraine is still showing a resolve to fight back, even at ongoing loss to its citizens. There are going to be mounting deaths, until NATO lays down the law and declares a firm red line. If Russian "separatists" don't want to live in East Ukraine, they are free to leave for Russia.

Until NATO gets the fuck out and Ukraine comes to an understanding with Russia.

In the meantime it's time for the US to disengage from Europe. NATO was to contain the USSR, not Russia. Maybe South Africa should send in an expeditionary force? The jokers running Ukraine are like the jokers running Russia. Objectivists seem locked into an obsolete Cold War mind set just as they are locked into other irrational expressions of the philosophy which became conservative with an atheistic twist.

Ayn Rand actually supported the Vietnam War, just not how it was being fought. That is, since we were in it win it. Rand was never really anti-war, just ignore war until it couldn't be ignored, then chose sides. The bad guys were the communists. She hated the communists more than the Nazis, but because of her past--and because the Nazis were toast by 1945--I've always given her a pass on that. Rand, living "a life of the mind" (N. Branden), was insulated by her abstractions and it only got really raw for her in the case of the Soviet Union and Israel.

Rand and Buckley had a turf war going on in the post "Atlas Shrugged" publication world, but they both hated the USSR with a passion. Go to the "gas chamber" vs "You are too intelligent to believe in God." This turf war left what was left of the Taft Republicans--next to nothing so they were irrelevant regardless--completely out of the loop.

There's a big disconnect between the radicalism in AS and Objectivism hence, superficially, the disconnect between Rand and the libertarians. Basically, however, it was another turf war. It was all turf wars. Within the Objectivist "movement" (it never moved all that much and never will) there was formal notice about the rulers (Rand-Branden) and ruled ("students of Objectivism") under the implied rubric of a supposedly individualistic, critical thinking philosophy. But Galt was on top. That was the governing commonality between AS and Objectivism and of the Galtian approach to the world: Top-downism. Hence, Galt is Obama just as Galt was Mr. Thompson. Galt won in AS. It's all turf warfare so why not real warfare in, oh, Ukraine? Orthodox Objectivism qua dogma is obsolete. It worked insofar as it worked in the 1960s--like a battering ram. There's nothing left to batter except ideological jello.

--Brant

send in the drones

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Until NATO gets the fuck out and Ukraine comes to an understanding with Russia.

In the meantime it's time for the US to disengage from Europe. NATO was to contain the USSR, not Russia. Maybe South Africa should send in an expeditionary force? The jokers running Ukraine are like the jokers running Russia. Objectivists seem locked into an obsolete Cold War mind set just as they are locked into other irrational expressions of the philosophy which became conservative with an atheistic twist.

?

--Brant

send in the drones

Yes well, not me: I am so far from a warmonger, in some circles I appear pacifist. However, one thing I've seen time after time, is that being prepared to fight and having the resolve to fight - with principle - pre-empts aggressors and deters most conflicts. Every now and again, it will mean backing up that principle by sending in the troops, in the right kind of fight, chosen at the right time. When the West had that kind of principled resolve, most of the world's roaches stayed hidden under their rocks, and we won't know how many lives were saved in how many conflicts. Backing off to bullies creates a dangerous precedent: "pour encourager les autres".

I don't think it's all a coincidence that now, with the West and especially the EU in disarray, focused on its own problems and with no appetite for more war, with leaders playing soft with the threats to their nations - that right now, Iran, Russia, ISIS and Boko Haram are feeling emboldened to act. All we need is N.Korea perceiving weakness, too...

The terrible premise is lack of principle and convictions, which makes for unclear policy, and poor strategy and tactics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Until NATO gets the fuck out and Ukraine comes to an understanding with Russia.

In the meantime it's time for the US to disengage from Europe. NATO was to contain the USSR, not Russia. Maybe South Africa should send in an expeditionary force? The jokers running Ukraine are like the jokers running Russia. Objectivists seem locked into an obsolete Cold War mind set just as they are locked into other irrational expressions of the philosophy which became conservative with an atheistic twist.

?

--Brant

send in the drones

Yes well, not me: I am so far from a warmonger, in some circles I appear pacifist. However, one thing I've seen time after time, is that being prepared to fight and having the resolve to fight - with principle - pre-empts aggressors and deters most conflicts. Every now and again, it will mean backing up that principle by sending in the troops, in the right kind of fight, chosen at the right time. When the West had that kind of principled resolve, most of the world's roaches stayed hidden under their rocks, and we won't know how many lives were saved in how many conflicts. Backing off to bullies creates a dangerous precedent: "pour encourager les autres".

I don't think it's all a coincidence that now, with the West and especially the EU in disarray, focused on its own problems and with no appetite for more war, with leaders playing soft with the threats to their nations - that right now, Iran, Russia, ISIS and Boko Haram are feeling emboldened to act. All we need is N.Korea perceiving weakness, too...

The terrible premise is lack of principle and convictions, which makes for unclear policy, and poor strategy and tactics.

The principle of intervention. The principle is self defense, not selfless "self defense." What's really going on is the battle of the hegemonies, not principles. Geo-politics is about applied power. Russia needs aikido, not karate.

--Brant

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Excellent posts guys.

Brant, could you flesh out what you meant by:

...and it only got really raw for her in the case of the Soviet Union and Israel.

in Post # 34 above.

A...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, next stop the Polish border.

(Will Nato have its act together by then, I wonder, to be able to stop them?)

Sanctions are beginning to bite hard in Russia, but I haven't seen any respite in the fighting, or peace negotiations - or even heard of any discontent from the population. That is ominous, it seems to indicate they and their State see the main prize as worth the sacrifices.

It has to be remembered that for a kind of primitive mindset, land is the ultimate aspiration and moral ideal.

Not to say I'm correct in all of this, but we receive RT (Russia Today) English, here, which I have been half keeping an eye on for the last year or two. It is amazing and alarming, and hilarious sometimes, their extreme propagandist output. It's like newsfeed from an alien planet, compared to CNN, etc.. The pure lies or semi-truths blatantly stated about the West - often in interviewing loony, self-hating American and Brit pseudo-intellectuals - and the amount of jingoist disinformation about the Ukraine, or the poor, victimized Motherland and its gallant leader, gives me insight into some furtive motives - maybe- preparing the way ahead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think Russia could do western Ukraine. It's a far cry from threatening invasion across the non-mountainous corridor into the heart of Europe with the Warsaw Pact behind its back. The M-14 battle rifle was designed for that hypothetical possibility. Now it's just used here and there, mostly ceremonial. I trained with that in 1964-'65, but got an M-16 in Vietnam. All that Russian media crap is only to keep everybody in line no matter what. If your enemy--let's say Russia is our enemy--is busy destroying himself don't interfere--to repeat an old cliche--and in this case don't try to speed it up the way the EU, the US and NATO are trying to do. Too much bad snap-back possibility. Unexpected consequences.

--Brant

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think Russia could do western Ukraine. It's a far cry from threatening invasion across the non-mountainous corridor into the heart of Europe with the Warsaw Pact behind its back. The M-14 battle rifle was designed for that hypothetical possibility. Now it's just used here and there, mostly ceremonial. I trained with that in 1964-'65, but got an M-16 in Vietnam. All that Russian media crap is only to keep everybody in line no matter what. If your enemy--let's say Russia is our enemy--is busy destroying himself don't interfere--to repeat an old cliche--and in this case don't try to speed it up the way the EU, the US and NATO are trying to do. Too much bad snap-back possibility. Unexpected consequences.

As you note, Brant, there is no Warsaw Pact in the world today. Previously subjugated soviet republics broke free of the pact as soon as they possibly could -- Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, ... and nominally independent countries in the pact did the same: Poland, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, Albania (Yugoslavia was not in the Warsaw Pact and had its own internal wars resulting in independence for Croatia, Slovenia, Serbia, Macedonia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Kosovo).

Some of these nations joined the European Union: Estonia. Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Bulgaria, Hungary, Slovenia, Croatia, Czech Republic, Slovakia. (Serbia is in accession talks with the EU).

Some of the former Warsaw Pact numbers are not only EU members or to-be-members -- they have joined the NATO military alliance: Hungary, Poland, Croatia, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Albania.

From the current reigning Russian view, since the fall of Communism, NATO has enlarged and encroached upon it. I think that is what Brant is referring to, the enlargement and perhaps perceived encirclement. I think all these countries chose their own alliances once freedom was established in the aftermath of the dictatorships. All those countries willingly joined the EU and NATO.

Ukraine is complicated, and a special case, in that the USA and Russia guaranteed security for Ukraine in exchange for removal of its nuclear weapons to Russia -- and in the supervening years (including the so-called Orange Revolution) the tug between the West and Russia has continued. Victor Yanukovich, who fled to Russia during the EuroMaidan uprising against his rule, tried to satisfy those who longed for greater ties with Europe and at the same time satisfy those who wanted to retain close ties with Russia. At a crucial point in his negotiations with the EU, the Russians persuaded him to drop all such plans of closer union with the West. This triggered the Maidan protests, and the overturning of the corrupt Yanukovich government.

We know the rest: Russia seized control of and annexed Crimea, then encouraged, armed, transported and gave leadership to so-called 'separatists.' In subsequent operations and continuing till today, Russian troops have crossed the border with advanced Russian armaments (including the type of surface to air missile that brought down the Malaysian plane). Under an RT-style propaganda cover story, fighters in the Donbass are 'volunteers' from the local population, not drafted soldiers from Russia proper.

Now, all this being more or less so ... I'd like to read Brant's or anyone's prescription anew. If it includes appeasing the bear, well, why? If it includes defanging NATO, why? If it includes no military support to Ukraine, why? What will be the unintended consequences if Russia takes over Novorossiya? If Russia agitates for Russian 'protection' of Russian-speaking minorities in the Baltics? If a NATO member is threatened? Are the parties in EU and NATO to do nothing, simply let the smaller nation be bullied by the larger? Remove sanctions, help the Russians recover from the oil-plunge hit to their economy? Encourage Russian agitation in Moldova and its statelet?

I understand most everyone has Objectivish principles underlying their opinions on this Ukraine issue. I know much less about the Ukrainian crisis than I do about the Syrian civil war. I understand a Randian approach that urges the USA stay out of international conflicts that do not properly concern the Homeland. I understand the other Randian approach that would preach solidarity with those resisting a Soviet-style military incursion.

I think it was right to impose harsh sanctions on Russian in the aftermath of the Crimea grab, and I think it would be right to help the Ukrainian's fight against whom I consider the aggressor, the invader. Russia is in a strange mood, belligerent, nationalistic, imperial, authoritarian, anti-freedom, repressive.

Scott Walker does not rule out American boots on the ground in a more aggressive confrontation with ISIS in Syria. What is his line on Ukraine, I wonder. Has anyone seen much discussion among the Republican presidential hopefuls?

Soledo%2B10.jpg

Edited by william.scherk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ukraine is complicated, and a special case, in that the USA and Russia guaranteed security for Ukraine in exchange for removal of its nuclear weapons to Russia -- and in the supervening years (including the so-called Orange Revolution) the tug between the West and Russia has continued. Victor Yanukovich, who fled to Russia during the EuroMaidan uprising against his rule, tried to satisfy those who longed for greater ties with Europe and at the same time satisfy those who wanted to retain close ties with Russia. At a crucial point in his negotiations with the EU, the Russians persuaded him to drop all such plans of closer union with the West. This triggered the Maidan protests, and the overturning of the corrupt Yanukovich government.

Precisely William.

Working back from that Agreement in 1994, what should America do?

First, can we return to the status quo ante? We can certainly supply them with some nuclear weaponry.

Second, if Europe wants to put their ballet slippers on the ground in the Ukraine...pirouette away!

Finally, we should seriously consider unannounced withdrawals over a period of years and invest heavily on insurgents within

Russia, preferably in their far flung East Asian and Antarctic borders.

Stretch their resources and unleash our economy as we develop a different global strategy that is built on technology.

A...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's geo-politics, William. Force, influence and power butting up against the same to the point of a basically static situation and general understanding of that status quo. If I have it right, eastern Ukraine was simply given over to Ukraine by the Soviets in the late 1950's or early 60's. Tell Ukraine to chop it off and give it back and treaty it out with Russia. Unless, that is, one's object is to do something more to Russia, like get rid of Putin, a nasty guy, aka "regime change." The problem with continuing to press the issue to a different result less favorable to Russia might be a nuclear exchange. That's all Russia can do except very locally. Most of its military is shit. Putin is the devil we know--sort of--do we want to deal with another we don't know, especially a politically weaker other?

The US waged economic war on Japan and got Pearl Harbor. What does the US want to get today by waging economic war in the context of an actual local conflict, Ukraine against Russia? These things are not being talked about or reported through mainstream monopolist corporate media. Instead we are getting war drums plus Hollywood jumping in with American Sniper and Sons of Liberty. I watched the latter--most of it--it's jingoistic crap and a slander on British General Thomas Gage and his Redcoats.

I've been wondering as I write this why I don't want to watch Clint Eastwood's movie--really don't. It's not going to manipulate me down to the recruiting station. I think it's because I'm psychologically capable of doing what Kyle did. It wouldn't be "fun" for me but I would be cold-bloodily merciless. Unlike the Vietnamese I once fought, I'd consider ISIS fighters hardly worth the bullets qua human being. I don't think there were any snipers in Special Forces back then. In the more open desert terrain in Iraq I'd be surprised if there weren't. There were American snipers in the Vietnam War. There was one case of about 200 North Vietnamese soldiers caught out in the open at night by a Marine sniper with his spotter. He pined them down and then called in illumination rounds all night long. When one North Vietnamese lifted his head or tried to move he was killed. This went on all night and he killed every one. These were not properly trained soldiers. An American outfit would have charged the sniper by squads.

One SF camp near mine in the Mekong Delta was attacked by a Viet Cong water-borne force. I don't know what they were thinking. After the attack with most of them dead, the women paddling the sampans turned around and tried to get away. One guy who went through medical training with me shot one of them in the back and laughed when he told me about it. It's not something I would have laughed about, but imagining myself in the same situation, as horrible as it sounds, he did what he was supposed to do. That's combat. He killed an enemy combatant. I'm glad I haven't that memory to live with. He stayed in the army. I got out. He was highly decorated. You might as well call him "Kyle." I do have some bad memories, though, and I'm seasoned by experience.

What Americans do not know, or if they do, want to accept, is the United States is an imperialistic, would-be world hegemonic nation. This nationalistic impulse goes way back to early colonial times. One rwason Americans got pissed off at the mother country was when Britain tried to contain the westward expansion the defined the character of the nation to be until there wasn't anymore west to expand into--oops!--not true. We went on and grabbed Hawaii then kicked Spain out of Cuba and grabbed the Philippines. As a great power the US made possible the creation and existence of 20th century totalitarianism and WWII and all the crap consequent to our involvement in WWI. And the beat goes on.

I grew up in the Cold War and living under the threat and rubric of possible general thermonuclear war. I hate communism. I fought communists. My paternal grandfather, German stock, was born in Ukraine in 1871. They had walked out of Germany in the early 1800s to avoid military service. When their privileged status was revoked they got on a boat and sailed to New York City--a whole bunch of Gaede's--immediately got on a train and went to Kansas where their new farms were waiting for them and planted wheat. I visited one in the early 1950s as a boy. My uncle, who died last year, was a navigator on B-36s out of Puerto Rico in the late 1950s. His job was to navigate his plane in case of war with the Soviet Union over his father's birthplace, go on for another 100 or 200 miles and drop one gigantic H-bomb. I personally never got the war juice out of me until it became apparent we were going to invade Iraq in 2003. I finally realized it was all crap. But, like my uncle, I'm an American warrior--like many millions of Americans--but I'll not be one for the United States. The US is run and controlled by stupid, power hungry power mad crypto-fascists of both the left and right. It's called "the two-party [fucking] system."

--Brant

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As everyone knows, America is inward-looking, slow to make the first move, scared of ruffling some other country's feathers, and pays little attention to the rest of the world.

President Scott Walker would change all that.

Under his administration American would awake from its sheepishness and take on its manifest destiny: to invade the entire planet.

Leading in Iowa, Walker says U.S. needs aggressive foreign policy

MADISON — Gov. Scott Walker said Sunday that the United States must “be prepared to put boots on the ground” anywhere in the world.

“I think anywhere and everywhere, we have to go beyond just aggressive air strikes,” Walker said during a live interview on ABC’s This Week. “We need to have an aggressive strategy anywhere around the world.”

(Continued here.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As everyone knows, America is inward-looking, slow to make the first move, scared of ruffling some other country's feathers, and pays little attention to the rest of the world.

President Scott Walker would change all that.

Under his administration American would awake from its sheepishness and take on its manifest destiny: to invade the entire planet.

Leading in Iowa, Walker says U.S. needs aggressive foreign policy

MADISON — Gov. Scott Walker said Sunday that the United States must “be prepared to put boots on the ground” anywhere in the world.

“I think anywhere and everywhere, we have to go beyond just aggressive air strikes,” Walker said during a live interview on ABC’s This Week. “We need to have an aggressive strategy anywhere around the world.”

(Continued here.)

omg.gif You and that Martha Raddatz sure figured him out. And who would know better than the Chippewa Herald newspaper of Wisconsin. Do Jimmy Stewart's Boy Rangers deliver it?

Good ole' Raddatz:is ABC News Chief Global Affairs Correspondent. She has covered all aspects of foreign policy for nearly 20 years – reporting from the Pentagon, the State Department, the White House, and from conflict zones around the world. In addition, Raddatz serves as the primary substitute for George Stephanopoulos on "This Week" and contributes regularly to the roundtable.

Host Martha Raddatz opened the 10-minute interview grilling Walker on foreign policy, a hole in the political resume of the second-term Wisconsin governor who took two official trips abroad during his first term.

lmao.gif

A

Yeah, Walker is so much below Raddatz that he should have bowed down to her and licked her boots...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For the sake of avoiding irrelevancies let us stipulate that on whatever scale is important to you Scott Walker is not below Martha Raddatz.

 

With that in mind, what sort of foreign policy road would a President Walker lead us down?

 

 


World News Videos | ABC World News

At about 2:45 he clearly says, “We need to have an aggressive strategy anywhere around the world.”

 

The "isolationism" of U.S. military deployments in "150 countries around the world, with nearly 160,000 of its active-duty personnel serving outside the United States and its territories and an additional 88,000 deployed in various contingency operations"* just isn't working for the Republican globalist.

 

 

 

*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_military_deployments

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At about 2:45 he clearly says, “We need to have an aggressive strategy anywhere around the world.”

The "isolationism" of U.S. military deployments in "150 countries around the world, with nearly 160,000 of its active-duty personnel serving outside the United States and its territories and an additional 88,000 deployed in various contingency operations"* just isn't working for the Republican globalist.

*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_military_deployments

I am cooking dinner and I will not listen to Ms. Raddatz.

However, was there a followup question?

Also, what was the prior question which elicited his statement.

A...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've done your homework for you and linked to a transcript of the interview below:

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/week-transcript-gov-scott-walker/story?id=28605893&page=9

Thanks.

Her questions were idiotic.

He gave a perfectly rational response that the US has to be ready everywhere on the planet and I would suggest the moon too.

When you are coming up with a game plan that encompasses a global strategy, similar to the way WWII was perfected, you have a presence globally.

However, you may have to work one theater as a holding operation similar to out Pacific strategy.

The key is having a total game plan.

A...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The body--the United States--doesn't have a head--i.e., one that knows, thinks and does in any appreciably rational manner. I'm afraid this won't change with the next President, no matter what the party.

--Brant

save yourself!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...