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
#21
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:
I can do this all day...

engagement

1. the act of engaging or the state of being engaged.
2. an appointment or arrangement: a business engagement.
3. betrothal: They announced their engagement.
4. a pledge; an obligation or agreement: All his time seems to be taken up with social engagements.
5. employment, or a period or post of employment, esp. in the performing arts: Her engagement at the nightclub will last five weeks.
6. an encounter, conflict, or battle: We have had two very costly engagements with the enemy this week alone.
7. Mechanics. the act or state of interlocking.
8. engagements, Commerce. financial obligations.

en·gage

1. to occupy the attention or efforts of (a person or persons): He engaged her in conversation.
2. to secure for aid, employment, use, etc.; hire: to engage a worker; to engage a room.
3. to attract and hold fast: The novel engaged her attention and interest.
4. to attract or please: His good nature engages everyone.
5. to bind, as by pledge, promise, contract, or oath; make liable: He engaged himself to repay his debt within a month.
6. to betroth (usually used in the passive): They were engaged last week.
7. to bring (troops) into conflict; enter into conflict with: Our army engaged the enemy.
8. Mechanics. to cause (gears or the like) to become interlocked; interlock with.
9. to attach or secure.
10. Obsolete. to entangle or involve.
–verb (used without object)
11. to occupy oneself; become involved: to engage in business or politics.
12. to take employment: She engaged in her mother's business.
13. to pledge one's word; assume an obligation: I was unwilling to engage on such terms.
14. to cross weapons; enter into conflict: The armies engaged early in the morning.
15. Mechanics. (of gears or the like) to interlock.

So I just proved that "active engagement" I was referring to had nothing to do with battle. But it doesn't really matter because I didn't post "active engagement" in the title anyways, so why are you now trying to debate this with me? Sorry, but if you guys want my title to mean battle, then it can mean that to you to all your heart's content. But, it's not in the usage I posted (even though you may have thought different) as I pointed out above with the definition of "take on." :rolleyes:
 

OSU Sig

Federal Marshal
Jan 28, 2005
15,939
3,111
1,743
66
Edmond
#22
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.
Don't look now but they are in the middle of a miitary build up as well.
 

Donnyboy

Lettin' the high times carry the low....
A/V Subscriber
Oct 31, 2005
25,965
22,613
1,743
#23
Don't look now but they are in the middle of a miitary build up as well.
Not China....

They are about piece and love....and limits on breeding....and lead paint....and poison toy dots.....and unrestricted carbon emissions due to their "struggling" economy.....
 
Sep 16, 2007
767
63
1,578
Bridgeport, TX
#24
Not China....

They are about piece and love....and limits on breeding....and lead paint....and poison toy dots.....and unrestricted carbon emissions due to their "struggling" economy.....
And Russia is about political assasinations and planting russian flags on the oil reserves beneath the polar ice cap.


What is even more unfortunate is that WE are now about invading sovereign nations, waterboarding un-accused detainees, tapping the phones of innocent americans, and fear-mongering presidential candidates.
 

NYC Poke

The Veil of Ignorance
Sep 24, 2007
38,776
45,652
1,743
#25
Don't look now but they are in the middle of a miitary build up as well.
They don't want to go to war with us. They own too much of our national debt. Their economy is completely intertwined with ours. The Chinese are a strange culture, but they are rational actors. There is no need for us to provocate them unnecessarily.
 

steross

he/him
A/V Subscriber
Mar 31, 2004
31,632
32,675
1,743
oklahoma city
#26
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?"
Then why isn't Guiliani proposing the cuts to entitlements that would be required to make our tax revenue cover defense? If Giuliani said "I am going to increase the size of the military and cut Medicare to pay for it" then you are on the right track. But, that isn't what he said. He is talking about additional spending, pure and simple. I want you to show me the tax revenues that there are "more than enough" of to cover his proposal.

Just because cutting taxes has worked in the past, does not mean it would continue to work. Otherwise, we should cut them to zero and have tons of revenue.

Considering that we already outspend the rest of the entire world combined in defense spending I think we are already carrying a pretty damn big stick. Guiliani is just politicking for the Republican base.
 

OStateMan

Banned
Banned
Feb 4, 2004
5,233
804
743
Vail, Colorado
#27
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.

Could you back up your claim with some evidence?!

Russia is siding with Iran.

Look at the map. Russia is extremely close to Iran and would prefer to have a Paper Tiger Iran controlling Iran than a real economic tiger in the form of the USofA controlling the vast oil reserves of Iran and also literally surrounding Russia with military forces. Of course Russia is siding with Iran -- it's less of a threat.

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

Sarkozy knows who's to befriend (USA). Sarkozy's political victory was a result of France's growing resentment of Muslim influence and threats. France, like most of Europe is dependent on Iranian oil and France knows who'd be the winner of any confrontation over that commodity. Can you imagine a Muslim lead Paris?
France has always aligned itself to the strongest boy in the playground.


USA and Britain are in Iraq and Saudia Arabia.

The world's largest economies, USA and Europe, see the writing on the wall when it comes to oil and protecting our interests and way of life...and with the growing demand for and declining supply of oil, nervous economies are jockeying for position.

Germany is siding with Iran.

Being more Judeo-Christian than Muslim, Germany wants it's economy to keep moving forward instead of returning to the dark ages of Muslim influence. Getting in line.

Anything else going on in the Oil States?
Watch out for growing tensions with China and India as those two economic giants seek the same small amount of available oil for their nuclear held economies.
 

CowboyJD

The Voice of Reason...occasionally......rarely
A/V Subscriber
Dec 10, 2004
18,916
20,684
1,743
#28
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.
Bull, the deterrent effect of further forces is not ACCURATELY described as "taking on" another country.

Notice how we wouldn't have had to discuss your illegitimate choice of words which continues with characterizing Guiliani's position that we need more forces available (one in which he isn't exactly the lone ranger....plenty of military experts have spoken on the inability to wage action in two theaters....a position we have almost never been in) as "staining the inside of his pants with his futuristic war fantasies."

I take it you consider that a "legit" description too. Personally, I'd suggest you spend more time addressing Guiliani's position on the issue rather than ad hominem attacks against him and anyone that happens to disagree with you.
 

CowboyJD

The Voice of Reason...occasionally......rarely
A/V Subscriber
Dec 10, 2004
18,916
20,684
1,743
#29
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.
I wasn't aware that ignoring the fact that they are a potential future threat would keep them from becoming one.
 

CowboyJD

The Voice of Reason...occasionally......rarely
A/V Subscriber
Dec 10, 2004
18,916
20,684
1,743
#30
And Russia is about political assasinations and planting russian flags on the oil reserves beneath the polar ice cap.
You forgot about the oil reserves of former Soviet Republics which Putin also has designs on.....along with re-establishing the former Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact influence in the future.
 

State

Russian Bot
Mar 15, 2007
13,913
8,007
1,743
TX
#31
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.
MASSIVE MILITARY BUILDUP! AHHHH!!!:rolleyes:

Do the liberals on this site do any fact checking before posting something? Do you have to know how many ships the Navy has now? How many combat brigades we have now? Already planned increases in either?

The US Navy currently has 279 ships. 19 ships are currently in construction or planned for construction. OMG that equals 298, we're almost at the MASSIVE increase the war-mongling Giuliani wants :eek:

The US Army is currently changing from a division-based to a brigade-based structure. There are currently 33 brigades. After freeing up bodies in the restructuring, the Army plans to have 43 brigades! OMG look at that again, it's the 10 more brigades Giuliani wants!:eek:

It might be correct to say Giuliani is playing politics by promising to increase the military by increments already planned for, but to say he's doing so to simply to "take on" China and Russia is alarmist and misleading.
 

kaje

Let's Go Heat!
Nov 19, 2005
15,892
7,914
1,743
37
Stillwater, OK
www.maczealot.net
#32
but to say he's doing so to simply to "take on" China and Russia is alarmist and misleading.
I guess you missed the part where he brought that up himself when asked a question about relations to China. Why does an answer on relations with China have to have anything to do with military?

And then finishing the question off with "If we do that, it will send a very strong signal to China and then Russia." Yeah, totally alarmist and misleading. :rolleyes:
 

State

Russian Bot
Mar 15, 2007
13,913
8,007
1,743
TX
#33
Considering that we already outspend the rest of the entire world combined in defense spending I think we are already carrying a pretty damn big stick. Guiliani is just politicking for the Republican base.
This isn't true! See, I underlined it, that increases it's truthiness. The rest of the world outspends us by 200billion or so, and we're not even in the top 25 as percentage of GDP spent. Source: CIA World Factbook
 

State

Russian Bot
Mar 15, 2007
13,913
8,007
1,743
TX
#34
I guess you missed the part where he brought that up himself when asked a question about relations to China. Why does an answer on relations with China have to have anything to do with military?

And then finishing the question off with "If we do that, it will send a very strong signal to China and then Russia." Yeah, totally alarmist and misleading. :rolleyes:
Nice side-stepping when confronted with facts. What was the question? It wasn't quoted, maybe it related to the military. If you don't know that China and Russia are already trying to challenge us militarily and how that affects our relations with them, then you shouldn't start discussions on presidential candidates.
 

kaje

Let's Go Heat!
Nov 19, 2005
15,892
7,914
1,743
37
Stillwater, OK
www.maczealot.net
#35
Nice side-stepping when confronted with facts. What was the question? It wasn't quoted, maybe it related to the military. If you don't know that China and Russia are already trying to challenge us militarily and how that affects our relations with them, then you shouldn't start discussions on presidential candidates.
When confronted with facts? This article is fact. Do you have proof that disproves cross-dresser Giuliani didn't say the things he's quoted as saying? He's a saber rattling warmonger and this article isn't the only thing proving this. Just watch the debates. Giuliani jacks off while reading Iran war strategies before he goes to bed.
 

State

Russian Bot
Mar 15, 2007
13,913
8,007
1,743
TX
#36
When confronted with facts? This article is fact. Do you have proof that disproves cross-dresser Giuliani didn't say the things he's quoted as saying? He's a saber rattling warmonger and this article isn't the only thing proving this. Just watch the debates. Giuliani jacks off while reading Iran war strategies before he goes to bed.
There's no getting to some people I guess.

Anyways, I've read our Iran war strategy, have you? It's pretty hot stuff.
 
Feb 6, 2007
1,115
132
693
Edmond
#37
MASSIVE MILITARY BUILDUP! AHHHH!!!:rolleyes:

Do the liberals on this site do any fact checking before posting something? Do you have to know how many ships the Navy has now? How many combat brigades we have now? Already planned increases in either?

The US Navy currently has 279 ships. 19 ships are currently in construction or planned for construction. OMG that equals 298, we're almost at the MASSIVE increase the war-mongling Giuliani wants :eek:

The US Army is currently changing from a division-based to a brigade-based structure. There are currently 33 brigades. After freeing up bodies in the restructuring, the Army plans to have 43 brigades! OMG look at that again, it's the 10 more brigades Giuliani wants!:eek:

It might be correct to say Giuliani is playing politics by promising to increase the military by increments already planned for, but to say he's doing so to simply to "take on" China and Russia is alarmist and misleading.
You make some excellent points State. Here's hoping they don't get lost in the tedium of defining the exact meaning of the phrase "taking on". :rolleyes:
 

steross

he/him
A/V Subscriber
Mar 31, 2004
31,632
32,675
1,743
oklahoma city
#38
This isn't true! See, I underlined it, that increases it's truthiness. The rest of the world outspends us by 200billion or so, and we're not even in the top 25 as percentage of GDP spent. Source: CIA World Factbook
My underline was for emphasis. Yours was for smartassiness. But, you are not a good smartass when you don't get your facts straight. It would have been helpful if you would have provided a link to your source to refute. But I found it anyway. It lists the countries defense spending as percent of GDP. They put us at number 28 of 172 countries listed. Please explain your truthy math on how that is not in the top 25%? If you are going to be picky about my figures at least get yours correct. We spend about 4% of GDP which I am fine with. But considering our GDP overwhelms everyone else's it is a lot of defense spending.

The sources of total defense spending vary. My source at http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/spending.htm lists us at $623B and the world at $1100B. They include the supplemental for the war on terror in our defense budget. I don't think the CIA does. It makes no sense to exclude those wars from our military spending. Regardless whether we are a little below half or above (depends on your source) my original point remains that we greatly outspend any of our potential enemies. Combining our allies we are nearly 3/4ths of the world's spending. Quite a position of power.

Again, I am fine with the amount we spend on the military as a % of GDP. I am not fine with continuing increases in deficit spending. If Guiliani is going to propose increasing military spending, he should also propose where the budget cuts to finance that spending are going to come from. Otherwise, he is just increasing the federal government, not a very conservative position. But, hey, if it makes you feel more manly to label me as a liberal, go right ahead.
 

State

Russian Bot
Mar 15, 2007
13,913
8,007
1,743
TX
#39
My underline was for emphasis. Yours was for smartassiness. But, you are not a good smartass when you don't get your facts straight. It would have been helpful if you would have provided a link to your source to refute. But I found it anyway. It lists the countries defense spending as percent of GDP. They put us at number 28 of 172 countries listed. Please explain your truthy math on how that is not in the top 25%? If you are going to be picky about my figures at least get yours correct. We spend about 4% of GDP which I am fine with. But considering our GDP overwhelms everyone else's it is a lot of defense spending.

The sources of total defense spending vary. My source at http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/spending.htm lists us at $623B and the world at $1100B. They include the supplemental for the war on terror in our defense budget. I don't think the CIA does. It makes no sense to exclude those wars from our military spending. Regardless whether we are a little below half or above (depends on your source) my original point remains that we greatly outspend any of our potential enemies. Combining our allies we are nearly 3/4ths of the world's spending. Quite a position of power.

Again, I am fine with the amount we spend on the military as a % of GDP. I am not fine with continuing increases in deficit spending. If Guiliani is going to propose increasing military spending, he should also propose where the budget cuts to finance that spending are going to come from. Otherwise, he is just increasing the federal government, not a very conservative position. But, hey, if it makes you feel more manly to label me as a liberal, go right ahead.
You are correct sir, I misspoke with the 25%, meant top 25. Of course I can't argue with you that we spend much much more than others on defense. I agree in principle that we should adhere as much as possible to a balanced budget, but I don't see anything wrong with deficit spending if it's not used for every little thing and a plan for how to pay it off is included. After all, that's how Reagan won the Cold War. No, I won't call you a liberal, you sir, are a great American.
 

steross

he/him
A/V Subscriber
Mar 31, 2004
31,632
32,675
1,743
oklahoma city
#40
Thanks for the kind reply. I am not against deficit spending in principle either. Especially during war. I just don't like out of control spending. Entitlements are going to hurt us and none of the politicians want to face that fact. Even though it is enormous, defense isn't even the issue.

From the Comptroller General:
http://www.gao.gov/special.pubs/longterm/tourqa.html

Q: Which of the large federal entitlement programs—Social Security, Medicaid, and Medicare—is most urgently in need of reform?

A: None of these programs is sustainable in its present form. They will all require reforms. However, I would say that Medicare is in the worst shape. It has an unfunded obligation of over $30 trillion in today’s dollars, which is over five times the Social Security imbalance. Medicare and Medicaid are affected by many of the same trends that affect the broader health care system, including demographics, rising health care costs, and increasing utilization of more advanced and expensive technologies, procedures, and prescription drugs.

Ultimately, we are going to have to reform our entire health care system in installments over many years. Health care costs are the number one fiscal challenge for the federal and state governments and the number one competitiveness challenge for American business. Our current system is badly broken and in need of major surgery. This will be difficult and controversial, but we must start to operate soon. After all, if there is one thing that could bankrupt America , it’s health care costs.


30 Trillion dollars could buy a lot of Navy ships. Problem is, what politician is going to tell people that we have to cut back on medicare or SS? Maybe Ron Paul. Probably none of them.