Posted on 06/07/2015 9:24:41 AM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
(VIDEO-AT-LINK)
Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker says he wouldn’t rule out a full-blown re-invasion of Iraq if he were to become the next commander-in-chief.
The likely Republican presidential candidate and early frontrunner in several polls said he would consider a re-invasion if it were deemed necessary to protect American national security at home and abroad.
"It would not be limited to anything out there," Walker told ABC's Jonathan Karl in an exclusive interview with for “This Week.” "Once we start saying how far we're willing to go or how many troops we're willing to invest, we send a horrible message, particularly to foes in the Middle East who are willing to wait us out."
Walker has been critical of President Obama’s handling of Iraq and Syria for its limited scope but also qualified that he does not believe in “open-ended, limitless engagements.” Though he has been sparse in offering specific changes to U.S. policy in the fight against ISIS, the likely presidential candidate said he has been deepening his understanding of international affairs in recent months....
(Excerpt) Read more at abcnews.go.com ...
Well, if there was another American invasion of Iraq, at least the drive-bys have Brian Williams to emulate.
Walker gives me a G.W. Bush feeling.
No need.
And that’s a bad feeling.
I agree.
I disagree as Walker looks Presidential by not limiting his options.
IF, and I emphasize “IF” we go back, it better be with the concept of Total War in mind. Go In, kill everything that fights, destroy everything that could assist them and leave.
We do not need the Bush/Obama method of soldiers denied ammo and lawyers designating and approving targets so as not to offend locals. If whatever Non Dem president wants to go back, he better damn well tell the Dems to STFU early, in public and often. Then ignore them and the media completely until we win and return home.
Or just stay home.
How is ISIS different from the Nazis when it comes to global ambitions? We fought the Nazis and conquered them, we SHOULD fight ISIS and conquer THEM. After all is said and done, ISIS will have left just as many bodies behind. They are a threat to the world and the United States doesn’t just sit back and WATCH them consume city after city, destroying historic sites and Christians too, along the way. Boots on the ground is a must, like it or not.
Ambush Question.
Lets see ABC ask Hillary or Bloomberg the same question.
Surgical Strikes against ISIS operations, Yes. An all out invasion of Iraq, NO.
We haven’t fought a war like that since 1945, what makes you think we’ll start now?
“Catastrophic Failure” by Stephen Coughlin is MUST reading for any Prez hopeful.
If you refuse to properly identify your enemy and acknowledge the motives of your enemy, you will fail.
You cannot seriously or accurately say that we can ignore what's going on in Iraq because Iran and ISIS are the real ballgame. Fact is, Iran and ISIS are behind what's going on in Iraq.
ISIS needs to be destroyed, period. Only by destroying ISIS and wiping their existence off the map can we then have Iran take us seriously in regards to their funding terrorism around the world and their attempts to build nuclear weapons with which to threaten their neighbors in the middle east and Europe.
Iran, ISIS and Iraq are not separate issues. They are intricately linked together. If we ignore what's going on in Iraq and what ISIS is doing there (and elsewhere...) we do so at our own peril and it'll be only a matter of time before we have another 9-11.
Those who refuse to learn the lessons of history are bound to repeat it.
WW2 happened largely because some of the lessons from WW1 were forgotten: a power vacuum was left behind after WW1 and a pattern of appeasement developed to avert another war. The appeasers were wrong then, and they're wrong now.
The whole Uniparty (Republican-Democrat) foreign policy since WW 2 has been policing the world under international law and the United Nations.
Its been designed to limit wars allowing defense contractors to profit with long term contracts to sustain long limited wars but also to keep multinational business and the world economic system going.
‘IN WAR THERE IS NO SUBSTITUTE FOR VICTORY’-GENERAL DOUGLAS MACARTHUR
Total War or No War.
No more half fast “Bush Wars”.
Russia, China and North Korea look like serious threats as well, more incentive to stay clear of the Middle East and let the local powers and peoples sorting it out with our help if needed.
The Russians, Chinese and North Koreans have nukes and make noise. I see multiple threats and support helping Christians and others to defend themselves from IS, but our forces have other threats to face.....
I have no reason to believe we will with the GOPe or Dems.....Stay out is the other option.....
Iran is a problem...Let Israel take care of them and or the Gulf Arabs is a solution unless someone or some special interests want the United States to do their fighting for them.
Yes, and the American public is totally illogical as well. Even I would not rule out anything that I wouldn’t know the status of within 4-8 years from now.
Yep. If it fits, you can't acquit.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.