Giuliani Calls for Massive Military Build Up To Take On China and Russia

  • You are viewing Orangepower as a Guest. To start new threads, reply to posts, or participate in polls or contests - you must register. Registration is free and easy. Click Here to register.

kaje

Let's Go Heat!
Nov 19, 2005
15,892
7,914
1,743
37
Stillwater, OK
www.maczealot.net
#1
Ames, Ia. -Republican Rudy Giuliani, campaigning in Iowa the same day that Bill Clinton was in the Hawkeye State, charged Thursday that the former president had weakened the American military and intelligence services through spending cuts during his administration.

"Our military is too small to deal with the Islamic terrorism threats, but it really is too small to deter would-be aggressors to even think of challenging us. And that's due to Bill Clinton," Giuliani told students and others in the audience of about 350 at Iowa State University's Memorial Union.

"Bill Clinton cut our military and our intelligence budget by such a huge amount that we've never made up the difference," said the former New York mayor, a candidate for the Republican presidential nomination.

Giuliani said in response to a question about relations with China that the United States needs a bigger military, including at least 10 more combat brigades and a 300-ship Navy.

"If we do that, it will send a very strong signal to China and then Russia ... that it doesn't make sense to challenge us," he said.

Bill Clinton, a Democrat, made campaign appearances Thursday in southwest Iowa on behalf of his wife's presidential campaign. The Clinton campaign did not respond to a call seeking comment about Giuliani's remarks.

Giuliani has made a habit of criticizing fellow New Yorker Hillary Clinton and the other leading candidates for the Democratic nomination while abstaining from direct attacks on his chief Republican rivals. His comments here and in Cedar Falls earlier Thursday were no exception.

He asserted that Democrats are advocating higher taxes in order to pay for government-driven health care mandates and other programs, but that he would reduce taxes and cut spending by civilian agencies if he is elected president.

Increasing taxes on business and investment would be "a terrible disaster for our economy," Giuliani told students and others in an appearance on the University of Northern Iowa campus. "We'll keep the tax rates low, like they are now, and then lower them even more."

He hit the tax theme again at his Ames campaign appearance. When Democrats offer proposals to raise taxes on the rich, "what they mean by rich is everybody paying taxes," he said.

Giuliani gave students in the crowd a homework assignment, inviting them to read a book by French President Nicolas Sarkozy that sets out goals emphasizing the need for less government and regulation in France.

At the Cedar Falls campaign event, Giuliani was asked by public speaking teacher Nikki Johnson about the disillusionment of students with government.

Giuliani clapped his hands and said, "Wake up, look at America. You are in a country that is the greatest country in the history of the world. You are so lucky. People who lived before you never had this kind of freedom. People before you never had this kind of opportunity.... We're so lucky that sometimes we take it for granted."

Johnson gave Giuliani good marks for making his point. "I thought it was appropriate," she said.
 

Pokefan

Territorial Marshal
Aug 3, 2004
8,661
39
1,678
68
Between Pryor and Adair on Beautiful Lake Hudson
#4
So how do you cut taxes and increase military spending? Where does the money come from to build the navy back up to 300 ships? What is the cost of adding and maintaining 10 more combat brigades? Would 10 brigades really deter the Chinese Army? After all with 1.2 billion people they can field an army 10 times bigger than ours already.

I guess its ok if children in the US don't have health care, but companies don't lose a dime in profit to taxes.
 

okstateguy987

Teamo Supremo
May 7, 2007
12,885
2
668
#5
Speak softly and carry a big stick. It's been the American motto and policy for decades. And the title's just a bit misleading, but that's what you can expect from this trash journalism you keep posting.
 

Pokefan

Territorial Marshal
Aug 3, 2004
8,661
39
1,678
68
Between Pryor and Adair on Beautiful Lake Hudson
#6
Speak softly and carry a big stick. It's been the American motto and policy for decades. And the title's just a bit misleading, but that's what you can expect from this trash journalism you keep posting.
Bush has never spoken softly. He has done nothing but sabre rattle since he was put in office. Diplomacy is something this administration has shown very little aptitude with. I doubt Giuliani will be any more adept at it. And what trash journalism are you talking about? HE said it. He used his forum to say what he would do and to attack Clinton. How is this Trash journalism?
 

kaje

Let's Go Heat!
Nov 19, 2005
15,892
7,914
1,743
37
Stillwater, OK
www.maczealot.net
#7
Speak softly and carry a big stick. It's been the American motto and policy for decades. And the title's just a bit misleading, but that's what you can expect from this trash journalism you keep posting.
The title isn't misleading. That's exactly what he did. It's not what the entire speech/article was about but it was mentioned in the speech/article.
 

okstateguy987

Teamo Supremo
May 7, 2007
12,885
2
668
#8
The title isn't misleading. That's exactly what he did. It's not what the entire speech/article was about but it was mentioned in the speech/article.
The title is:

Giuliani Calls for Massive Military Build Up To Take On China and Russia

...Implying that Guiliani wants to attack Russia and China.

The actuality:

"If we do that(build up our forces), it will send a very strong signal to China and then Russia ... that it doesn't make sense to challenge us," he said.

...Implying that he only wants to do it to act as a defense more than an offense. That is not the same as "taking them on".
 

trueorangeblood

Cold ass honky
Sep 14, 2006
3,256
2,572
1,743
Tulsa, Awesomelahoma
#9
The title is:

Giuliani Calls for Massive Military Build Up To Take On China and Russia

...Implying that Guiliani wants to attack Russia and China.

The actuality:

"If we do that(build up our forces), it will send a very strong signal to China and then Russia ... that it doesn't make sense to challenge us," he said.

...Implying that he only wants to do it to act as a defense more than an offense. That is not the same as "taking them on".

answer this question for me, If I am carrying a gun when I approach you on the street and yell "don't challenge me" what would your response be? would you view that as "taking you on"?
 

kaje

Let's Go Heat!
Nov 19, 2005
15,892
7,914
1,743
37
Stillwater, OK
www.maczealot.net
#10
The title is:

Giuliani Calls for Massive Military Build Up To Take On China and Russia

...Implying that Guiliani wants to attack Russia and China.

The actuality:

"If we do that(build up our forces), it will send a very strong signal to China and then Russia ... that it doesn't make sense to challenge us," he said.

...Implying that he only wants to do it to act as a defense more than an offense. That is not the same as "taking them on".
I'm sorry but could you show me where "taking on" is a definition of "attacking?"

Here's a nice list for you thanks to our friends at dictionary.com:

take on,
a. to hire; employ.
b. to undertake; assume: to take on new responsibilities.
c. to acquire: The situation begins to take on a new light.
d. to accept as a challenge; contend against: to take on a bully.
e. Informal. to show great emotion; become excited: There's no need to take on so.
 

CowboyJD

The Voice of Reason...occasionally......rarely
A/V Subscriber
Dec 10, 2004
19,213
20,834
1,743
#11
I'm sorry but could you show me where "taking on" is a definition of "attacking?"

Here's a nice list for you thanks to our friends at dictionary.com:

take on,
a. to hire; employ.
b. to undertake; assume: to take on new responsibilities.
c. to acquire: The situation begins to take on a new light.
d. to accept as a challenge; contend against: to take on a bully.
e. Informal. to show great emotion; become excited: There's no need to take on so.

And NONE OF THOSE accurately describe what Guiliani said. Every one of those indicates an ACTIVE engagement and face off with another party. He was advocating a build up to avoid having to engage and take them on.

Your title was misleading.
 

Slugger926

Federal Marshal
Oct 19, 2004
11,665
1,653
1,743
#12
Bush has never spoken softly. He has done nothing but sabre rattle since he was put in office. Diplomacy is something this administration has shown very little aptitude with. I doubt Giuliani will be any more adept at it. And what trash journalism are you talking about? HE said it. He used his forum to say what he would do and to attack Clinton. How is this Trash journalism?
Giuliani has shown in the GOP debates that he is clueless in World affairs, and tries to make a joke out of the canidates that do have a clue. Ron Paul understands more of the world affairs than the other GOP canidates but is iffy in getting the nomiation unless his supporters really get out the vote.
 

Slugger926

Federal Marshal
Oct 19, 2004
11,665
1,653
1,743
#13
Has anyone else noticed that the world powers are carving out their own little section of the middle east?

China is helping create the genocide in Dufar so they can get the oil there.

Russia is siding with Iran.

France is feeling threatened by Iran so they are calling for possible military action there.

USA and Britain are in Iraq and Saudia Arabia.

Germany is siding with Iran.

Anything else going on in the Oil States?
 

OSU Sig

Federal Marshal
Jan 28, 2005
15,939
3,111
1,743
66
Edmond
#14
The title isn't misleading. That's exactly what he did. It's not what the entire speech/article was about but it was mentioned in the speech/article.
Your title is misleading and I suspect you realized the controversy it would generate when you composed it. you are a pot stirrer-and a good one.
 

kaje

Let's Go Heat!
Nov 19, 2005
15,892
7,914
1,743
37
Stillwater, OK
www.maczealot.net
#15
And NONE OF THOSE accurately describe what Guiliani said. Every one of those indicates an ACTIVE engagement and face off with another party. He was advocating a build up to avoid having to engage and take them on.

Your title was misleading.
Actually, the usage of take on that accurately reflects my title is:

d. to accept as a challenge; contend against: to take on a bully.

Do we need to look up a few more definitions for you now? Active engagement does not necessarily mean battle, so you are right that it would require an active engagement. What makes this an active engagement? Naming China and Russia. Otherwise, we would not be actively engaging them. What we would be "taking on" would be a competition/rivalry (contend in case you were wondering) among militaries to scare one another off, hence the whole purpose of him state it.

My title was just fine, thanks.

Notice how we have now gone from changing the argument from Bush to the definitions of words because people are upset about my choice of (legit) words rather than discussing the fact that Giuliani is staining the inside of his pants with his futuristic war fantasies.
 

OSU Sig

Federal Marshal
Jan 28, 2005
15,939
3,111
1,743
66
Edmond
#16
...Notice how we have now gone from changing the argument from Bush to the definitions of words because people are upset about my choice of (legit) words rather than discussing the fact that Giuliani is staining the inside of his pants with his futuristic war fantasies.
This comment verifies what people are saying about your misleading title. You intentionally position the title in order to create controversy. The article doesn't say anything about Rudy wanting war, as this comment infers. Instead, he's positioning himself to be pro-defense in order to prevent it.
 

kaje

Let's Go Heat!
Nov 19, 2005
15,892
7,914
1,743
37
Stillwater, OK
www.maczealot.net
#17
This comment verifies what people are saying about your misleading title. You intentionally position the title in order to create controversy. The article doesn't say anything about Rudy wanting war, as this comment infers. Instead, he's positioning himself to be pro-defense in order to prevent it.
I wasn't aware that we were in danger of going to war with Russia and China. I'm sure building up a military just to prove that we're not scared of them (like we should be) will really help relations.
 

NYC Poke

The Veil of Ignorance
Sep 24, 2007
38,776
45,652
1,743
#18
Giuliani has turned into a raging lunatic. Check into who he has advising him on foreign policy. He has assembled the most breathtakingly irresponsible advisors of any campaign in modern history. We can all debate the semantics of the thread title, but we should be looking at the broader implications of the team assembled by Giuliani, and the meaning behind his statements. He is out of his element, and completely reckless.
 
Sep 14, 2006
2,571
266
1,713
Oklahoma City
#19
So how do you cut taxes and increase military spending? Where does the money come from to build the navy back up to 300 ships? What is the cost of adding and maintaining 10 more combat brigades? Would 10 brigades really deter the Chinese Army? After all with 1.2 billion people they can field an army 10 times bigger than ours already.

I guess its ok if children in the US don't have health care, but companies don't lose a dime in profit to taxes.

1. The U.S. Constitution authorizes Congress to spend money on national defense.
2. "Cutting Taxes" has increased government revenues every time it has been tried since the JFK administration.
3. There is more than enough "tax revenue" to build back the combat force suggested by Giuliani.

A better question you may want to answer is: "What unconstitutional expenditures should Congress cut to pay for the constitutional mandated national defense?"
 
Aug 3, 2006
315
0
1,566
S. of OKC - N. of Norman
#20
Do we need to look up a few more definitions for you now? Active engagement does not necessarily mean battle,

Notice how we have now gone from changing the argument from Bush to the definitions of words because people are upset about my choice of (legit) words rather than discussing the fact that Giuliani is staining the inside of his pants with his futuristic war fantasies.
ac·tive 1. engaged in action; characterized by energetic work, participation, etc.; busy: an active life.
2. being in a state of existence, progress, or motion: active hostilities.

engagement an encounter, conflict, or battle:

noun
1. a hostile meeting of opposing military forces in the course of a war; [syn: battle]

I thought the post where about the italian and not the texan and someone had to throw the texans name into it. :guns: