Digg - Rudy calls for a massive Military buildup to take on China and Russia

292 Comments
Who Dugg It?

katie212, on 11/13/2007, -7/+155Rudy is scarey that is for certain. That is what we can look forward to if we vote in another Bush Hack neocon like Giuliani..
- kooft, on 11/10/2007, -3/+29Rudy's a neocon flunkee, smart neocons only go after countries _without_ nukes...
  - Nimphious, on 11/10/2007, -3/+18Smart neocons? Isn't that some kind of oxymoron?
    - dafragsta, on 11/10/2007, -1/+20Some kind of moron.
  - sanman, on 11/13/2007, -15/+1So if he mentions China, it turns off the liberals in droves
    But if he mentions Russia, it will bring the liberals flocking
    Therefore it makes sense to mention them both at once, in order to cancel out the effects
    - GawtMilk, on 11/10/2007, -0/+3It's pretty annoying, to be honest. Many Diggers feel this way too, and if a candidate supported this they'd shake their heads. Now, I don't support this, but I don't go around saying "China and Russia have the US by the balls, they've got bigger armies, blah blah blah". What Rudy is suggesting actually falls in line with what many people on this website believe, and it's not the ideology that bugs me, it's the hypocrisy.
- XXXXXXXXXXXXXX, on 11/11/2007, -21/+2hey guise lets attach esoteric labels to people so it looks like we know what we're talking about!!!
  - Identity4, on 11/10/2007, -1/+3Hey guys, lets be a dick like this guy! ...or not.
- stalzdiggity, on 11/10/2007, -1/+4I'm not going to lie I never really had a problem with Rudy until I read this article. Before I just thought he was stupid for bring up 9-11 in everything he talked about.
  - luchid, on 11/10/2007, -0/+9It took you so long to see what a whackjob he is?
    - jjesusfreak01, on 11/10/2007, -0/+4thats ok, at least you know now...better than not knowing at all
      - stalzdiggity, on 11/19/2007, -0/+1yes, now im well aware
  - plato1123, on 11/10/2007, -0/+3Seriously, Rudy is Bush on steroids. It's unf-ing believable he is leading the Republican nomination over the relatively sane ones, Ron Paul and John McCain
- nucleararms, on 11/10/2007, -1/+5Know your enemy!
- hiphoc, on 11/10/2007, -0/+9Armageddon ***** YEA!!!
- BossKey, on 11/11/2007, -6/+5I don't like Rudy but on this point he is somewhat correct. China and Russia are the biggest rivals to the US in the first half of the 21st century. (We will see which countries maintain their dominance into the 2nd half of the 21st century, even if no shots are fired.)
  
  The problem with Rudy's concept is that it illustrates EXACTLY WHY we should never have started the Iraq war. We have bigger military priorities in this world than Iraq, and yet we've poured an unconscionable amount of our military and economic resources into the Iraq sinkhole. A smart conservative would have resisted the temptation of Iraq and kept our forces fresh and fully stocked for any real military enemies we might have to face in the next few decades. As it is, the current administration has worn out our military so severely in Iraq that they could almost be charged with treason, given how intentionally they have weakened America's forces. Any terrorist/enemy of America would be ecstatically proud if they could done to America's military what this administration has done.
  - soomprimal, on 11/11/2007, -0/+11Look we have nothing to fear from these countries if we would just adopt a foreign policy that works to foster equal relationships with other nations instead of just trying to be on top all the time.
  - opiniastrous, on 11/10/2007, -0/+2In Rudy's defence, his article in the September/October edition of Foreign Affairs articulates his position much better than it is here. It's not as extreme as it sounds when he has to sum it up in speeches designed for a public with a short attention span.
    
    http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20070901faessay86501 ...
    
    That said, if I had a vote, it wouldn't be for him.
    - opiniastrous, on 11/10/2007, -0/+6Damn I hate the comments system at the moment. You post a comment and the spaces between the paragraphs are way too big (or you just need to change something - not irregular right?), so you reopen and submit again, only to find your link no longer works!
      
      http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20070901faessay86501 ...
- masamunecyrus, on 11/13/2007, -0/+7C'mon, guys, it's not like a bigger, stronger military-industrial complex could and would be used to attack Iran. That's silly.
  - caferrell, on 11/10/2007, -0/+1Hey, why stop at Iran, we could start another little oil war closer to home in Venezuela....
- faxxy, on 11/13/2007, -5/+11Ron Paul Opposes:
  War in Iraq
  War with Iran
  Patriot Act
  National ID Card
  Income Taxes
  Unbalanced Budget
  
  The other candidates support ALL the above
  Are you supporting the right candidate?
  - GawtMilk, on 11/13/2007, -3/+9"The other candidates support all of the above".
    
    Apparently Ron Paul supports brainwashing, as this is just not true.
    
    http://www.ontheissues.org/War_+_Peace.htm
    
    Especially give Mike Gravel a look. He's got the morals of Ron Paul with none of the idiotic "Abolish the FCC!" strict-constructionist *****.
  - chesterogilvie, on 11/10/2007, -1/+2Yeah, ***** the bill of rights.
- cyb3rdemon, on 11/11/2007, -0/+4This is EXACTLY what we need to avoid.
  If dumbass Guiliani enters a nuclear war with Russia and China, YOU WILL DIE.
  Russia, China and the US are the strongest countries on the planet. To think a conflict between them will be anything less than devastating to both is retarded.
  The new Russian missiles can successfully avoid all us countermissile defenses. If there is a war, expect all the major US cities to be completely leveled, at best.
  This is the worst case scenario. If our economy collapses, you may lose money and property, but you will still live.
  If they pass PATRIOT ACT II, you may lose your civil rights, but you will still live.
  If a war between the US and Russia and China happens, YOU WILL DIE.
  
  Whatever you do, make sure Guiliani doesn't win!
  - Beveridge89, on 11/10/2007, -0/+1Guiliani isnt talking about nuclear war. Not even conventional war with them. Hes talking about maintaining a stronger military as a disinsentive for them to fight a war or challenge US interests. Basically its about maintaining US hegemony, which while isnt great, is better than Chinese/Russian hegemony, or a cold war type situation.
  - tsos2, on 11/11/2007, -0/+1If we go to war with China, there will probably be a draft. Any man or woman under the age of 40 will be up for grabs if they are physically fit enough to go. You think our military is stressed now? I'm familiar China's capabilities, let me tell you they is not to be screwed with.
cashman57, on 11/12/2007, -4/+94Rudy tootie the gun grabber thinks Americans are stupid. That is the only conclusion I can come to after reading and listening and watching him on the campaign trail.
- Groovemaster, on 11/11/2007, -1/+37The fact that he even made the campaign trail proves Americans are stupid.
  - troye, on 11/11/2007, -0/+9No, just the Americans that vote are stupid. More smart American citizens need to start voting.
    - jjesusfreak01, on 11/10/2007, -0/+4Yes but that doesnt change the fact that most americans are in fact stupid.
  - caferrell, on 11/10/2007, -0/+2The citizens of New York, who know him well can't stand the man, neither can his children or the first two women that he was married to.
    Shouldn't that indicate something to the American voters? When everyone that knows you well hates you, it is probably because you are loathsome...
- FutureGuy, on 11/11/2007, -1/+18He is f-ing stupid, so most in this country. US forgot that what primarily won the cold war was not military it was US's economic might. They learned their lesson, now China and Russia are turning into economic powers while US is busy fighting wars and enjoying cheap chinese goods while the US economy and the dollar is sinking like a lead ship with holes. US is doomed unless its people wake up, which now looks more and more unlikely!!!
  - Beveridge89, on 11/13/2007, -2/+1Economy and Clever 80s dipolmacy won the Cold War, but there was 40 years of Cold War before that.. What stopped them losing before the 80s was the US military.
- Rizaus, on 11/10/2007, -0/+1Has to be it. I thought it was a joke when I heard he was running I figured he wouldn't last to long let alone be the top Republican candidate,
tastypickles, on 11/12/2007, -3/+104Idiot.
- HerrEisenheim, on 11/10/2007, -4/+8He's not an idiot, he's a politician. That means he says whatever he needs to say to whatever particular constituency he's trying to appeal to on that day. Politicians don't "mean" what they say. They don't even necessarily know what they are talking about, and they don't care. They care about votes.
  - TopherT, on 11/10/2007, -1/+4Not ALL politicians, surely you jest. Can't think of a single one? Not even one very popular on Digg? Not a libertarian leaning candidate for the 2008 election? *****, sorry guys, I try not to but I can't help spamming sometimes.
- FredSpeaking, on 11/10/2007, -0/+2Given Giuliani's background, I think Eisenheim is right on the money. The guy's not stupid; he's machiavellian. I just hope Rudi would abandon his campaign "promises" like the rest of them do.
- caferrell, on 11/10/2007, -0/+1He's not an idiot. Dubya is an idiot. Rudy is very clever, very smart, but still propounds the neocon war doctrine. He is much more dangerous than the idiot that we have now.
conceptkid, on 11/13/2007, -14/+55Rudy tooty the gun grabber is an isolationist. He will ruin this country more than it already is and isolate us even more than we already are.
- XXXXXXXXXXXXXX, on 11/13/2007, -9/+21That's NOT isolationism. Isolationism means pulling out of U.N., NATO, and severing all ties besides economic with other countries. We are not under an isolationist policy right now. We have never been in one since before WW2. Isolationism does NOT include war with other countries.
  - jjesusfreak01, on 11/10/2007, -0/+3Name 5 countries where both the governments and people dont hate us, then tell me how isolated we are...
    - XXXXXXXXXXXXXX, on 11/11/2007, -1/+1ok lets redefine every political term that exists justs because we can
- obliviousfool, on 11/10/2007, -1/+8He would certainly alienate us from most other countries on earth. That would create a sort of forced isolation in some cases, but this isn't really what we call isolationism. Rudy seems to favor the neo-con agenda of farking with everything under the sun.
- soomprimal, on 11/10/2007, -1/+2I think conceptkid was being ironic, not technical in his or her use of the word, "isolationism".
  - iToke, on 11/10/2007, -1/+1I think you mean 'idiotism'
jimmyjay, on 11/13/2007, -4/+127That's the ticket. Peace through superior fire power!

Just be sure to dig enough graves for your kids.

R.I.P.
- obliviousfool, on 11/13/2007, -2/+29You know, excessive military spending is often cited as one of the major reasons for the fall of the Roman Empire. The American Empire should take some notes.
  - ruddy, on 11/10/2007, -1/+12
    - absolutroot, on 11/10/2007, -0/+2love it
- k3ano, on 11/10/2007, -3/+4WAR IS PEACE
V3n0M, on 11/13/2007, -4/+91Giuliani's complete lack of foreign relations knowledge rears its head once again. China is paying for that strong military.

http://www.mediacynic.com/cgi-bin/mediacynic.pl?cy ...
"China currently holds more than $800 billion U.S. dollars; dumping even a fraction of those dollar is going to cause ripples in the U.S. economy -- the dollar is going to fall, interest rates will rise and the housing market bubble could collapse."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_ ...
"the U.S. Treasury statistics indicate that, at the end of 2006, foreigners held 44% of federal debt held by the public. About 66% of that 44% was held by the central banks of other countries, in particular the central banks of Japan and China. In total, lenders from Japan and China held 47% of the foreign-owned debt."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?xml=/m ...
"It is estimated that China holds over $900bn in a mix of US bonds."
- caferrell, on 11/11/2007, -1/+23Amen, China doesn't have to go to war, all they have to do is keep buying up America, or they can dump their dollars and crash our economy. And Rudy wants us to go deeper into debt to buy a bigger military.
  We already spend 50 cents of every dollar of military spending in the world. That doesn't keep us safe according to Rudy and King George. God protect us from this man.
  - xBDVx, on 11/10/2007, -6/+2"they can dump their dollars and crash our economy."
    except...their economy runs on the fact that we buy all our ***** from them. Basically, we rely on them as much as they need to rely on us.
    - digghasnoethics, on 11/11/2007, -0/+7Nope, 22%
      
      Chinese exports to the US are 22% of their total. Losing that would hurt, but it wouldn't be near the knockout blow that a collapsed dollar would create. Plus there are advantages for China, particularly if blowhards go around seriously talking about attacking China.
    - Beveridge89, on 11/10/2007, -1/+1So what happens to Europe, and the rest of the Free World, when the US collapse? Of course it collapse to. Chinas economy needs them to survive, a lot more than we need Chinas to survive.
- SiNN4R, on 11/11/2007, -1/+11I'm so happy that people are finally understanding how we can afford our insane foreign policy.
- crapmatic, on 11/11/2007, -4/+3V3n0M for the win. China has our financial markets by the balls. We have to play nice.
- databoy, on 11/11/2007, -2/+5The trouble with Americans is that they believe the political ***** that their leaders spin doctor. China and Russia can bankrupt the USA without firing a bullet. Why would China want to start a war with the USA when in 25 years time they will own the country and the economic infrastructure.
- 98percentcogdis, on 03/25/2008, -0/+2That's because China is the future neo-con home away from home. When the US goes down, you'll find that they have paid for their ticket to China in advance!
- gabeh73, on 11/13/2007, -0/+1Nobody can convince me that a "defense strategy" that depends on borrowing $1 trillion from China and another half trillion from Saudi Arabia and Russia is a good idea. The obvious flaws of this strategy are compounded when the government depends on knowingly lies to lead the American people into this risky situation. The flaws are compounded further when the government tells us that we must defend "freedom" by destroying the 1st, 2nd and 4th amendment of our constitution!
  
  The question is does guliani know this and he really wishes to destroy our country or is he a idiot? and how bad must our public education system be so that a good percentage of our country thinks he is making sense?
NightVortez, on 11/13/2007, -5/+71Yes, provoke the other two world empires, pure genius.

I don't know about any of you but if we have another unjustified war, I'm siding with Putin.
- PricklySponge, on 11/13/2007, -11/+17Putin's a way bigger douche than any current US candidates
  - sovietamerica, on 11/13/2007, -8/+3
    - bonoboho, on 11/13/2007, -2/+4i didnt vote for bush.
      
      even the stories taht are coming out of NPR are severely critical of putin. staging rallies, assassinations, ***** posturing.
      
      he sounds pretty similar.
      - BabyWookie, on 11/13/2007, -0/+1Putin is no saint, but there's also a wave of well-organized anti-Russian propaganda that has been in full swing for the past few years.
    - techmaster, on 11/13/2007, -2/+6No, he's right... Putin really is a douche.
  - Identity4, on 11/10/2007, -0/+6Well....when push comes to shove and bombs start flying, who will YOU side with? Douche or Turd Sandwich?
  - gerbil20, on 11/10/2007, -0/+1pRon Paul included.
  - NightVortez, on 11/13/2007, -0/+2Well he wasn't enough of a douche to start a war against a third world country for oil yet, so I'll take him over pretty much all the top tier candidates, perhaps besides Obama.
  - Beveridge89, on 11/10/2007, -0/+1Right he just kills journalists, critics, political opponents and Chechens in his own terroritory. He sounds much better.
    - BabyWookie, on 11/13/2007, -0/+1It has never been proven that he had any one killed. The Western press sensationalizes these stories and blames a lot of ***** on him, but when the people who are really responsible are discovered, the story gets ignored. For instance, the story of the murder of journalist Anna Politkovskaya. Many in the Western press had openly accused Putin of whacking her, but when the real murderers got arrested, it got barely mentioned. There has been a lot of anti-Russia propaganda in the press for the past few years.
- orxor, on 11/10/2007, -3/+6If we have another unjustified war I'm moving to Canada.
  - gulp35, on 11/10/2007, -0/+6what if we attack Canada?
    - 98percentcogdis, on 03/25/2008, -2/+1We will be part of Canada as the North American Union. Mexico will also be a part of this Union. The currency will be the Amero.
      - MacEnvy, on 11/10/2007, -0/+2Okay, Lou Dobbs.
  - chesterogilvie, on 11/10/2007, -0/+3Buy maple syrup futures
  - carpespasm, on 11/10/2007, -0/+1if we have another unjustified war anti draft dodging laws will throw your ass in jail for trying. (I'll be using an undisclosed heavily forested border.)
Happy_Phantom, on 11/13/2007, -4/+59This war mongering maniac is threatening (and mortgaging) my daughter's future. It's a good thing this fool stands no chance of getting elected.
- mrASSMAN, on 11/10/2007, -1/+14Don't be so sure though, just make certain that it doesn't happen. He is leading the republican ticket you know. D:
  
  If Bush could get "elected" into office twice, Giuliani can too.
  - SiNN4R, on 11/10/2007, -1/+1No he won't. If I have anything to say about it he won't even find himself getting the republican nomination.
    - techmaster, on 11/10/2007, -1/+6WTF do you think this is, America? You have no say in the government here...
      - jjb123, on 11/10/2007, -0/+1I think he was implying something else.
- lazyfisherman, on 11/10/2007, -1/+4He's a friend to corporations, extremely malleable and willing to play ball with the wealthy elite but there's a perception among the public that he's America's mayor and some kind of common man's hero. Unfortunately, this bastard could easily be elected.
  - gerbil20, on 11/10/2007, -0/+1And so he will...
  - gerbil20, on 11/10/2007, -1/+1deleted
  - gerbil20, on 11/10/2007, -1/+1deleted
  - carpespasm, on 11/10/2007, -0/+1911911911911911Vote4Rudy911911911911911911911911911911911911911.....
  - 98percentcogdis, on 03/25/2008, -0/+1What surprises me is how he is doing in the polls in New York. I thought that he was extremely unpopular in NYC, but apparently not in the whole state.
    - MacEnvy, on 11/10/2007, -0/+1NYC != NYS. It's important to remember while half of the population of the state lives near the city, the state itself is much more diverse. I grew up in the Adirondacks and currently live in the Utica/Syracuse area, and there are a whole lot of Bush supporters around here. It's heavily Republican and surprisingly impoverished and religious, and while people used to be New Hampshire-style conservatives (the kind I respect), I see more and more people buying into the neocon reactionary ***** that spews from the mouthpieces of this Administration - and Giuliani is one of those mouthpieces.
- MistySteele, on 11/10/2007, -0/+1We must work to stop it. if it's him vs Hillary, his chances are good.
reeder, on 11/12/2007, -4/+59As though 25,000 nuclear weapons, the most advanced standing military in history, and over 300 million civilian owned guns aren't enough of a deterrent? You just got off the train in crazy town, Tooliani. The fact that somehow MORE threats of violence and war are the ideas Tooliani keeps espousing should scare the ***** out of every citizen of humanity.
- krusader3z, on 11/10/2007, -1/+2I didn't check all your figures, but my "War and Force in World Politics" professor says we have around 8000 nuclear weapons.. and Wiki says we have about 5000
  
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapons_and_t ...
- opiniastrous, on 11/10/2007, -0/+1I would have thought anyone would have realised the US will never use its nuclear weapons unless an opponent state is also going to use nukes, or if the US is about to collapse in wartime (i.e. a last attempt scenario). Also, 300 million civilian weapons are only an issue if a country plans to invade the US, which is highly improbable.
  
  For everything else (from conventional to non-conventional conflicts outside the USA's borders), you need a strong military.
  - TopherT, on 11/10/2007, -0/+3Why fight in conventional and non-conventional conflicts outside of the USA's borders?
  - Xondar, on 11/10/2007, -0/+1I think you guys should use your 300 million civilian weapons to overthrow the government.
- Beveridge89, on 11/10/2007, -0/+1The point isnt to deter a Chinese invasion of the US, which will never happen, but to counter Chinese influence in the rest of the World.
Barman, on 11/11/2007, -5/+48I doubt Rudy will be around much longer. Everyday this idiot puts his foot in his mouth. Eventually the whole country will see him for the scum that he is.
- mrASSMAN, on 11/10/2007, -1/+11Hopefully.
- Dumbledorito, on 11/10/2007, -1/+9The Republican Party has been one big horror movie that keeps giving you one last "oh, it was just a dream" moment before the next scary thing pops up. I think Rudy is the natural result.
  - lazyfisherman, on 11/10/2007, -1/+6He is the Neocon horror show personified. I didn't even think it was possible to be worse than Bush but here he is. I pray that even most Republicans will realize that he is too extreme in his desire to wage war, morally bankrupt, mentally unstable and dangerous to everyone.
    - 98percentcogdis, on 03/25/2008, -2/+2Do you think Hillery is a better choice? When are people going to realize that there is no Dem or Rep. It's who is willing to play ball with the elites. The question is: How do we get someone elected who is willing to stop this powerful monster that has been calling the shots for a long, long time. And also how would we be able to keep him from being assassinated, once elected.
      - Dumbledorito, on 11/11/2007, -0/+1I think we're all pretty used to getting screwed by the ruling classes, no matter where they come from. It's just trying to keep those who screw us AND are insane from getting into the Oval Office. We failed that with Bush, and a lot of us are hoping that alarm bells are going off for Guliani.
sugablonde, on 11/12/2007, -7/+59I guess now is the time to be making more enemies??? ***** YOU Giuliani!! BURN IN HELL!
walmsley, on 11/10/2007, -6/+20rudy, you suck at being a bad guy, get a life. your just pissed cos you got a tiny *****, and your someone else TOOL.
Just the idea of a US vs Russia + China situation is preposterous. But it is NOT impossible. Vote for Rudy and it could come true. However even if you don't vote for Rudy one of his cronies may very well make it happen a-la-sly if you get me....
- SiNN4R, on 11/10/2007, -1/+4If the war expands from Iraq to Iran that is a very real possibility. The chinese would be able to devalue our currency and cripple our economy before a shot was even fired.
ostracize, on 11/10/2007, -5/+30In the early 1900's Wilhelm II had the same kind of thinking. While the UK would have certainly supported a German invasion of France (France was their traditional enemy, greatest threat to their imperialism in Africa, etc.) Wilhelm, for some stupid reason, thought it was necessary to build up a powerful navy just like Britain, get into Africa just like Britain, etc. This only served to make the English wary of Wilhelm and his intentions and they began to side with France (who started sucking up to the British when they saw what Germany was doing). By 1914, Wilhelm had shot himself in the foot and pretty much destroyed his own country.

Building up the U.S. military to rival Russia and China would do the EXACT same thing. The U.S. needs to concede to their military numbers and build a friendship. (eg. save money on military, spend it on building economic relations with them) In the event of war against Russia or China, the U.S. military would have to be smarter, not larger.
- caferrell, on 11/10/2007, -1/+4Excellent point Mr. ostracize.
- XXXXXXXXXXXXXX, on 11/10/2007, -7/+3Even though you are right to some extent, it was NOT Germany's fault. And France was not a major player in imperialism + it was allied with Britain at the time. It was a stupid rivalry similar to the Cold War. Britain and Germany were both competitives in the world of imperialism. They were determined to show each other off at any point possible. It was as much Britain's fault as it was Germany's. Most historians blame the entangling alliances (Bismarck's system). I don't remember much, but Germany was essentially allied with Austria. If Austria went to war, Germany would be morally bound to follow. On the opposite side, Britain, France, and some other European countries were in military alliance also, including Serbia. When some Serbian guys assassinate the Austrian king or some *****, Austria has no choice but to declare war on Serbia. This causes Germany to declare war on Serbia, with France declaring war against Austria and Germany and so on because of the entangling alliances set up by Bismarck. Great stuff. Nice try to compare, but they're not similar.
  
  EDIT: For ***** of info on this, read http://college.hmco.com/history/west/mckay/western ...
  - ostracize, on 11/10/2007, -1/+5You are way off base.
    I know that Germany was obligated to go to war thanks to the uneasy situation in the Balkans, but had Wilhelm not pissed of the English in the first place, WW1 would have been over in a matter of weeks.
    
    I won't reiterate what I just described, but have a look at the link you gave:
    
    The rival blocs
    1. William II dismissed Bismarck, and his termination of the GermanRussian Reinsurance Treaty led to a new RussianFrench alliance.
    2. Under William II, the BritishGerman "natural alliance" deteriorated into a bitter rivalry.
    1. The Boer War, German envy of British imperialism, and economic and military rivalry drove the British and the Germans apart.
    2. Then Britain allied with Japan and turned to France and formed the AngloFrench Entente of 1904, which further alienated Germany.
    3. Germany tested this entente in a diplomatic struggle over Morocco.
    4. The Algeciras Conference (1906) left Germany emptyhanded and isolated.
    3. As a result, Germany became increasingly distrustful, and other European countries began to see Germany as a threat.
    4. German naval buildup, under Tirpitz, led to an arms race with Britain and a cycle of paranoia.
    
    Looks to me like the UK and Germany had a "natural alliance" but Wilhelm screwed that up by trying to become more powerful than the UK.
    
    And France definitely was a major player in imperialism, especially in Africa:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_imperialism
    The UK didn't like this because they envisioned a British Africa stretching from Egypt to South Africa. France initially laid an East-West claim to Africa but gave that up to please the UK.
    France did not ally itself with Britain until 1904, 15 years after Wilhelm II came to power. That's 15 years of deteriorating relations between Germany and the UK.
    - XXXXXXXXXXXXXX, on 11/10/2007, -5/+2The Bismarckan system of alliances would have forced Germany into war anyway
  - gaspy, on 11/10/2007, -1/+2Yes and no.. the key here is "Austria has no choice but to declare war on Serbia". Actually they did have other choices. Serbia offered them them the killers, financial reparations, ANYTHING just to forgive the killing. The Austrian-Hungarian empire WANTED war and used the assassination as an excuse, plain and simple. It was pretty much like 9/11 if you will.
- coreman, on 11/13/2007, -5/+0But once again, the US will assume that what we have done in the past (build up huge set-piece military) will work again. Russia and China are developing weapons that will easily overwhelm our forces, but in ways we haven't thought of. Think of all the anti-ship missiles in Iran - what *would* happen if they started salvo-launching Mach 2+ cruise missiles at the USS Enterprise battle group? (seems like I do recall Larry Bond's books, and others, that one of the things that Larry's war game, Harpoon, revealed was just how vulnerable blue-water navies are to cruise missiles. Except at that time, the big threat was 100 or 200 Russian BEAR bombers dropping 200 or 400 AS-11 Kitchen Mach 3+ cruise missiles at a carrier battle group. It was easy enough to game out the scenario in Harpoon - fleet will get destroyed.
  
  So now we're playing with 2 or 3 CBGs in the Persian Gulf... We're playing right into Iran's strength!
  
  Russia and China are slowly drawing the US in, and payback is a bitch. We "won" the Cold War without firing off a shot in anger, really. But what is going to be Putin's payback for this, and losing in Afghanistan?
  
  The US' best defense is to not be engaged militarily in that region. China and Russia do not have the capabilities to touch the US head-to-head on our side of the oceans (excluding Russia's nukes).
lOvOl, on 11/10/2007, -7/+17Giuliani's strategy for dealing with Islamofascism is similiar to the strategy employed a hunter out in the woods who gets frustrated by a bunch of mosquitoes biting him and decides that he will just shoot them all with his shotgun. When he finally realizes that he is out of ammo, he then notices that he just alerted a Grizzly bear to his whereabouts and that Grizzly bear is now charging directly at him.
- gr3yn3t, on 11/10/2007, -1/+2interesting analogy...
- lazyfisherman, on 11/13/2007, -1/+1I like it. We're in no position to bully to Russia or China.
  - 98percentcogdis, on 03/25/2008, -0/+1Islamofascism? Why use a word that has been made up by the puppet media?
iching, on 11/10/2007, -3/+10Don't forget what he said about the outer space alien threat!
- soccerman90, on 11/10/2007, -1/+3remind me
- banmaster, on 11/10/2007, -0/+1http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/1324 ...
manicmarvin, on 11/10/2007, -6/+1http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/Rudy_Giuliani_s_ ...
riverrunner, on 11/13/2007, -5/+42thank you adolph giuliani. where do i sign up?
- Spoomeister, on 11/10/2007, -1/+15Please, please, please let "Adolf Giuliani" become an internet meme.
- gerbil20, on 11/10/2007, -0/+3Godwin's law, here I come.
- RobGilpatric, on 11/10/2007, -0/+2Back in the late 90s here in NYC, I'd see this dude on the streets of the East Village all the time. He was selling "Adolph Guiliani" t-shirts, with a pic ol' Rudy with an Adolph mustache. Over and over, this dude would say "Adolph Guiliani t-shirts!". It was a funny shirt, very clever. Then I didn't see him for a while, and then one day I spotted him on the street and asked him how sales were going. He became visibly nervous and asked, "Are you a cop?" "No!" I said. "Oh," he said. "I stopped selling them. These guys in suits told me I'd better not to sell them anymore. So I don't." This goes to show ya that this Adolph Guiliani idea has a ring of truth to it, dunnit? Now I wish I'd bought a bunch of those shirts.
absolutroot, on 11/12/2007, -3/+44And how the hell does he plan on challenging China and Russia? Asking them for more money to build his army against them? Yea, right.
- podrag, on 11/11/2007, -0/+1nail the head on the hit
Napoleone, on 11/10/2007, -3/+17Increasing the size of our military in order to "send a message" to Russia and China would be pretty dumb, because if we ever got into a fight with either country there would be a draft the next day.

Why waste hundreds of billions more dollars -- which, ironically, we'd be borrowing from China -- maintaining an army we could raise in a matter of months if need be? It's not like we could even deploy the army we have now in that same amount of time.

Rudy just wants to feed the beast that is the MIC.
- macman2k, on 11/10/2007, -0/+1The federal reserve would simple monetize the debt and inflate the currency. The problem is that China holds an economic WMD and could crash the dollar faster than we can spend the money to build the army.
iching, on 11/10/2007, -14/+1122 votes and it is still in upcoming.?............
I guess that might be what it takes for me to get out of the basement of the up and coming now

Oh, Look!!!! Best Buy has a sale!!!!!I I like technology but please, that is like OJ. for Americans
as are any OJ stories.

http://digg.com/tech_deals/Best_Buy_Black_Friday_A ...
SeethisPass, on 11/10/2007, -1/+6In the future watch for this ploy.
Every time the U.S. is doing something utterly wrong, they call it "sending a message"
ToastyMallows, on 11/13/2007, -9/+45Crazy Mother *****.
Vote Ron Paul.
- DirtySnachez, on 11/12/2007, -20/+5Don't tell me how to vote, fascist.
  - ivandir, on 11/12/2007, -0/+1He is suggesting you what to do idiot. Not taking away your choice.
- SiNN4R, on 11/12/2007, -1/+5word.
- Humptydank, on 11/10/2007, -1/+2Crazy Mother ***** indeed.
  Vote (for) Ron Paul (to explain to us what he would do instead, rather than just discuss his general ideology and leave us to guess).
  - bratpack8, on 11/10/2007, -0/+1go to his site, listen to interviews with him. he is the most transparent of all candidates. go ask him a question on the campaign trail, I'm sure he'd answer it.
    - Humptydank, on 11/10/2007, -0/+1Thanks, but I've researched him extensively, and unfortunately his transparency does him a disservice because it becomes quickly obvious that the same ideologies are being repeated, on his web site, on the Ron Paul Library, in YouTube interviews, in debates, and in major and alternative media interviews both video and print, without the necessary strategies to make them anything more than an empty philosophical debate.
      
      All the other major candidates have extensive position papers on how they plan to achieve their stated goals. You may read them and think they're *****, but note the number of details that are available for you to think are *****, note how they have detailed legislative strategies that you can think are *****, funding sources that you can think are *****. You may completely disagree with them, but they are taking a public stand by publishing what they believe. They have opened their ideas up to extensive scrutiny as a result. See, as an example, Clinton's health care plan both for specificity and for just how vicious scrutiny can be. They knew that was coming, but they published it anyway because they thought it was right and they were taking a stand.
      
      Why can't Ron Paul do the same? Why can't I go to his web site and see his position paper on cutting government waste? Why are there only just a few paragraphs now? In his announcement speech he said that any fiscal conservative could cut 25% percent of this government's spending. Third party web sites supporting Ron Paul have only been able to come up with 10%, including the military and other large programs, various others have speculated on some other sources of savings, why has the one person who supposedly knows what cuts to make not told us? Why have other people written more guessing at his plans that he has explaining them?
      
      I'm frustrated because he seems to be satisfied with the role of standard bearer, getting some enthusiastic posts on Digg, online poll results, and fund-raising by pointing at a new horizon and shouting "charge!" But he really could be a reformer, and spark some real mainstream changes in how business-as-usual is evaluated in government, if he would just support some of the rhetoric with a map that takes us from where we are now to the future he envisions. That's what isn't there no matter where you search.
    - craigob, on 11/13/2007, -0/+1There a couple hundred of Ron Paul's articles, speeches, etc. on various issues archived here:
      http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul-arch.html
- BabyWookie, on 11/13/2007, -0/+1Nah. Vote Dennis Kucinich.
spyd3rweb, on 11/10/2007, -1/+1Is this enough to get people to not vote for him if they haven't been convinced already?
AmericaSold, on 11/10/2007, -4/+8He is another sick person. America is lead by a bunch of megalomaniacs. Nuts. They are a disgrace to all the men and women who died fighting to stop people like them during world war two.
RollFizzlebeef, on 11/13/2007, -4/+22Funny how Republicans say they want small government...except when it comes to the military.
- jugglingjon, on 11/11/2007, -2/+12And how they say they want to keep the government out of your affairs.... except when they're setting up wiretaps or reading your email.
  - RollFizzlebeef, on 11/10/2007, -2/+9And how they insist homosexuality is "an abomination"....and then go trolling for it in men's bathrooms.
    
    (We could give examples like this for ages.)
    - SlvrEagle23, on 11/10/2007, -1/+4And how more and more steps are being taken to protect the privacy of the corporate boardroom, while at the same time just as many steps are being taken to remove the privacy of the average homosexual's bedroom...
      
      (I guess you're right, we could go like this for ages...)
- macman2k, on 11/10/2007, -0/+1Not all republicans. Ron Paul wants to greatly shrink the military and use it to cover domestic services while cutting taxes.
heystoopid, on 11/10/2007, -2/+3What a gasbag dingbat !
- gerbil20, on 11/10/2007, -0/+1pRon Paul?
clearzen, on 11/10/2007, -2/+20Please America do not elect this dictator wanna be. The only thing this guy is missing is a goose step and combat boots.
Racerx52, on 11/10/2007, -3/+8How can this man, threaten the country that has garden shears around our balls.
- techmaster, on 11/10/2007, -0/+3He should go on a hunting trip with Dick Cheney.
haoest, on 11/10/2007, -1/+18***** WARMONGERS
cmpshotty, on 11/10/2007, -1/+10I think this is a stupid idea, there is no reason to send them a message to not challenge us. This isn't the 1980's, he isn't Ronald Reagan and we're not trying to bankrupt the Soviets. They won't ever challenge us not because of our conventional army, they have populations that can overwhelm us. We have a massive nuclear arsenal and a defense system able to stop theirs. Rudi, I'm not sure what he's thinking.

This war on these terrorists isn't won through a massive increase in our military, it's won through special operations and intelligence. We are losing due to refusals to listen to good intelligence people on how to win this thing and instead we have discussions on going back to the Cold War. It's inane.
- lazyfisherman, on 11/10/2007, -2/+3America's Fraud would like to continue the war on terror for the sake of his corporate masters. For them to continue to profit, there has to be enemies.... oh so many great enemies to be afraid of! Osama and his crew are old news, they need new boogeymen to make us scared and turn to our great, benevolent leaders to protect us.
- 98percentcogdis, on 03/25/2008, -0/+1"No End In Sight" Iraq's descent into chaos, the inside story from the ultimate insiders. MAGNOLIA pictures
- cyb3rdemon, on 11/10/2007, -0/+1A defense system able to stop theirs? No.
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RT-2UTTH_Topol_M
  http://www.missilethreat.com/missilesoftheworld/id ...
  
  The new SS-27 Russian missile is capable of evading all US countermissile defenses.
crackah, on 11/11/2007, -1/+15***** that. If he gets in hello WW3.

Doing that would be the stupidest thing American can do right now.
- spyd3rweb, on 11/10/2007, -1/+2Dude if any of them get it its WW3 they all want to attack Iran. Except for Ron Paul anyways.
  - Humptydank, on 11/10/2007, -1/+1Well we don't really know that about Ron Paul, do we?. Although Ron Paul has discussed a strict non-interventionist policy, he hasn't discussed any details of that policy.
    
    For example, would there be any military or humanitarian transgressions anywhere in the world that would be so terrible, so inhumane, that we would act? Or does our phone always go to voicemail? There are just a few top-line ideological discussions on the topic on his campaign web site, when it's clear from this discussion alone that he needs to explain his position in a detailed way.
    - PeppermintPig, on 11/10/2007, -0/+3The less specific the scenario, the more difficult it is to give an answer. Context is always important. I think the main issue for a Paul presidency would be that he would require congress to ACTUALLY declare war, amongst other things. Otherwise, he'd try to resolve things without the use of force.
      - Humptydank, on 11/10/2007, -0/+1So it would take a declaration of war to render humanitarian aid, or are we out of the humanitarian aid business completely? And if so, completely completely? Is there any scale of famine or human suffering that would cause Ron Paul to act? If not, is that on the premise that other nations will help instead, or that even if they refuse, we just let them die?
        
        That's question one, question two is getting a little more specific:
        
        If Ron Paul is elected, will that be an open letter to every country in the Middle East that no matter what they choose to do to Israel, we will not get involved? If they all (or some, or a few) combine their efforts to wipe it off the map, perhaps forcing Israel into actually using nuclear weapons to defend itself, would we still do nothing? Even if diplomacy doesn't work? (it certainly might, but it doesn't have the best track record over there, and I'm asking, what if it doesn't)
        
        I'm familiar with the history of the region, the indecencies on both sides, and various arguments regarding all facets of legitimacy, so you don't need to go through those. Just the basic question: Is there a situation in which we would intervene, or does our phone always go to voicemail?
    - 98percentcogdis, on 03/25/2008, -0/+1Oh, Do you mean, like going back to the original, albeit illegal, agreement and giving back the land that was to be the Palestinian land after it was taken away from them and divided up by the United Nations?
      - Humptydank, on 11/10/2007, -0/+1Well, isn't the attraction of a strict non-interventionist policy that it doesn't worry itself with past injustices or future effects, it's simply a rule: we will not intervene?
        
        We will devote ourselves to diplomacy, and perhaps use the economic power of our open markets to try to convince various parties that they benefit more from peace, but if the non-interventionist policy is strict, then the message we send to the world is simple: if a push comes to a shove, we will not be involved.
        
        So that is my question -- if anyone were at all interested in overturning the 1947 Partition Plan and re-allocating all current Israeli lands to more historical, or brand-new, boundaries (which I'm not assuming they necessarily are, but just for purposes of the question), would Middle East leaders know in advance that the United States has pledged that we will do nothing?
        
        What if Israel came to us privately and said that they were being overwhelmed, and were preparing to use their nuclear warheads to defend themselves if they didn't receive assistance defending their borders using conventional warfare?
        
        Again, I ask because I'm not accustomed to the philosophy of complete non-intervention, and I've seen various definitions in various places, so I'm trying to sort out what it means for Ron Paul.
        
        Thanks.
NDzImpy, on 11/10/2007, -5/+0I'm going to vote for the candidate that promises flowery fields and cute furry little bunnies!

Ghouliani, what a tool!
InetRoadkill, on 11/10/2007, -2/+14Rudy is ***** insane. You would think that spending more on our military than the rest of the world combined would be enough already.
- plato1123, on 11/10/2007, -0/+2Yea, we're buying new submarines to counter the threat of islamo-terrorism. Calling Rudy an immoral fool doesn't begin to scratch the surface
chrisgnv, on 11/11/2007, -2/+17He's ***** delusional.
nicejai, on 11/11/2007, -2/+18I feel like we're going back in time.

We're practically in another real-estate bust like the 80's.
In a war with no clear enemy or goal with no hope of winning like the 70's.
Now Guliani wants to compare military dicks with Communists like the 60's.
What's next? Another world war like the 40's!?
- wazzledoozle2, on 11/10/2007, -1/+4Yeah, we are definitely regressing.
  - djbon2112, on 11/10/2007, -0/+1The Regressive Party, they've maybe become?
    
    /Feel free to digg down for bad Maddox reference ;)
  - Identity4, on 11/10/2007, -0/+1There is a simple way to win against this regressionist attitude: a 2x4 with a nail in that! YEAH!! Duke it out like its 4700BC!!
Urusai, on 11/10/2007, -3/+4Cold War 2, an idea whose time has come. Maybe he can bring back Reaganomics, too. Oh wait, Bush has already done that.
- Identity4, on 11/10/2007, -0/+1Cold War 2: Electric Boogaloo
stox, on 11/10/2007, -2/+6Sieg Rudy!!
spectre_25gt, on 11/12/2007, -1/+16Why do I get the feeling we're all going to die pretty soon?
- xsquirrel378x, on 11/10/2007, -0/+2i had to digg that up cause it sounded really funny....i still think we will end up destroying ourselves in the long run
tehxen3, on 11/10/2007, -5/+3In the next 10-15 years China's economy will outgrow US one for so much that it will be impossible to keep military spending up to match them.
High military spending is what kept costs of war too high for both parties during the cold war though, therefore keeping peace.
- rexblade, on 11/10/2007, -4/+1Less then that when yer looking at a dollar soon becoming 50 cents in the exchange rate. Who wants to be a 500.000.00$ oops wait no i mean a 250,000.00 er 125,.000.00. Aw sorry America yer moneys no good here. Maybe you should join that N.A.U.
  So if $1=$. 95 and it costs 3.50 for a measly gallon of gas it actually costs 3.67
MacintoshSauce, on 11/11/2007, -2/+9God help us if this bloody idiot becomes President.
- techmaster, on 11/10/2007, -0/+1There are some things that even God can't help... Giuliani's lunacy being one of them.
  - ronpaul4mes, on 11/10/2007, -0/+1Don't worry - Rudy stands no chance. And just to make sure he really doesn't win make sure you vote for Ron Paul
- plato1123, on 11/10/2007, -0/+1I think most of us said that about Bush... somehow conservatives didn't learn anything from him
- loginabove, on 11/11/2007, -0/+1He won't make it.
Weather, on 11/11/2007, -4/+4Its too bad people cant vote on line. The turnouts would be better and morons could be weeded out earlier.
HandsomeRuss, on 11/11/2007, -2/+12Keep in mind, Rudy's advisor's are all the people that were too extreme for Bush.
- lazyfisherman, on 11/10/2007, -1/+1hell yeah, it's completely FUBAR that he's even made it this far
indiannomad, on 11/10/2007, -2/+4This guy is a total nut job. A while back i read about his group of advisors. Most of the people who were considered too nutty to join Bush's regime are a part of his core group of advisors.
Amazetbm, on 11/10/2007, -2/+3Considering that Bush has run up all kinds of deficits with China...that would be rolling up to your bank's HQ with a trench coat full of guns.
divad1978, on 11/11/2007, -1/+9Last week I was telling someone that the thought of Guiliani being president scares me. After reading this I think "scares me" was a huge understatement.
DontGiveADamn, on 11/10/2007, -1/+2Is a vote for Rudy a vote for war?
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=585 ...
rocket777, on 11/10/2007, -1/+2Joe Biden was wrong, it's Two Proper nouns and 9/11

This is the same guy who prosecuted the junk bond guy, right? He charged him with about 300 different criminal acts, then let him plea bargain to one technical mistake.
databoy, on 11/11/2007, -2/+4Australia has the right idea. We sell raw resources to any country who wants to buy them. Unfortunately we have an imbecile deputy sheriff, Little Johnny in bed with George W. I would trust China and Russia before the clowns who run the USA.
m3g321, on 11/13/2007, -2/+2well, i think everyone is thinking the same thing. I get to chose between the crazy bald guy from new york, or the crazy lady from new york. both want to get us into wars, both are completely unstable and both lie constantly. Time for the two party system to end? yea I think so, but hell, voting for an independent is throwing your vote away right?
- djbon2112, on 11/10/2007, -0/+2DON'T THINK LIKE THAT!
  
  The danger in that belief is that then NO ONE votes for the independent. VOTE FOR HIM. If enough people do, it won't be a wasted vote!
  - ronpaul4mes, on 11/10/2007, -0/+4Just vote for Ron Paul - he wants us out of Iraq, wants to talk to Iran. He's a man of peace, friendship, free trade (not managed trade), the Constitution, civil liberties, against policing the world, against federal income tax.
    - psyjoniz, on 11/10/2007, -0/+1i am voting for ron paul.
      
      tip : if you want people to see ron paul promotion and think you are just being a promoter keep the name 'ronpaul4mes'
- annienyc4, on 11/10/2007, -0/+1Depends on where you live. Vote with your heart in the primary. If you are in a super close state and you really hate one candidate during the general, vote against them by voting for the other one. This is when you should vote for the lesser of 2 evils. If you live in a state that is always red, or always blue, vote independent or other party or write in.
blackmagician, on 11/11/2007, -1/+18Dear Rudy,
Shut the hell up.
Love,
me.
Show 51 - 100 of 119 discussions
Login or register to add a comment

Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.

Rudy calls for a massive Military buildup to take on China and Russia

submitted by

What is Digg?

Top in US Elections 2008

Our Presidents’ First 100 Days in Office [Infographic]thumb

Login or register to add a comment

Rudy calls for a massive Military buildup to take on China and Russia

submitted by

What is Digg?

Top in US Elections 2008

Our Presidents’ First 100 Days in Office [Infographic]thumb

Related by Keyword

Facebook has a Bigger Population than Japan and Russia!

UGO Buys 1up, Massive Layoffs

CNN readers overwhelmingly disagree with Rudy

Login or register to add a comment