Rick Santorum declared War on China in October 2011.

Very few people noticed it:

Former Sen. Rick Santorum declared war on China in last night's Bloomberg-Washington Post presidential debate.

After Mitt Romney and Jon Huntsman traded barbs about China's record of currency manipulation, Santorum injected himself into the conversation, saying:

"You know, Mitt, I don't want to go to a trade war, I want to beat China," he said. "I want to go to war with China and make America the most attractive place in the world to do business."

source: articles.businessinsider.com...

How can you interpret that?

"I DON'T want to go to a TRADE war (...) I want to GO TO WAR with China".

Is there any other possible interpretation???

Besides a trade war, what is the other kind of war that you know? Nuclear war?




This man, Rick Santorum, is the same that says "Obama's agenda is not based on the Bible".

What if this crazy fanatic wins the election in the USA?

Should Russia and China take "preventive action" now?

The full quote - in context - from your own source

After Mitt Romney and Jon Huntsman traded barbs about China's record of currency manipulation, Santorum injected himself into the conversation, saying: "You know, Mitt, I don't want to go to a trade war, I want to beat China," he said. "I want to go to war with China and make America the most attractive place in the world to do business."

He wasn't talking about World War III. He wasn't talking about making China all Christian. The conversation was about currency, economics and business. He was talking about a business war. Economically we have lost to China. He doesn't want just a trade war, but he wants America to come out on top of China economically.

I don't know how you get anything else out of that. It's pretty clear.

reply to post by GLontra

It is helpful to read the transcript at the bottom of the article. That paints a different picture. The candidates had been asked, and spoke, about trade wars and economic competition with China.

Santorum did not inject himself, he was specifically asked about the subject by a moderator.

The other candidates had just finished saying they didn't want to go for a trade war, so you should have expected Santorum to offer his opinion on the subject.

Based on the transcript, it's fairly clear the Santorum wanted to go to war with China the way Coke wants to go to war with Pepsi.

I think this report is biased. I hope the bias is on the part of Business Insider.

"You know, Mitt, I don't want to go to a trade war, I want to beat China," he said. "I want to go

to war with China and make America the

most attractive place in the world

to do business."

Read more: articles.businessinsider.com...

He said: "I DON'T want to go to a TRADE war (...) I want to GO TO WAR with China".

How can you claim he was talking about "economic war" if the said "I DON'T want to go to a TRADE war "???

Originally posted by GLontra
He said: "I DON'T want to go to a TRADE war (...) I want to GO TO WAR with China".

How can you claim he was talking about "economic war" if the said "I DON'T want to go to a TRADE war "???

"You know, Mitt, I don't want to go to a trade war, I want to beat China," Read more: articles.businessinsider.com...

How is "beat" synonymous with "war"?

Originally posted by GLontra
He said: "I DON'T want to go to a TRADE war (...) I want to GO TO WAR with China".

How can you claim he was talking about "economic war" if the said "I DON'T want to go to a TRADE war "???

You are quoting two different sentences...

Also know as:

Taking someone out of context.

The original text from Business Insider:

"You know, Mitt, I don't want to go to a trade war, I want to beat China," he said. "I want to go to war with China and make America the most attractive place in the world to do business."


There is nothing "out of the context" here.

First, he says he DOESN'T want a MERE trade war.

Second, he says he wants to GO TO WAR.

reply to post by GLontra

I can claim it because a trade war is not the same as an economic war, which is not what Santorum was talking about. Try this as a possible alternative explanation:

"I don't want to become involved in raising tariffs and imposing quotas on Chinese goods. (THAT'S a trade war.) I want to compete with China on the basis of economic efficiency, governmental stability, freedoms, access to capital, a trained workforce, etc. On that battlefield we will pass China and return to being the unquestioned economic powerhouse of the world."

That makes a ton more sense than what is being claimed by Business Insider.

Maybe a Chinese newspaper may start to claim now that the USA has threatened to "wipe China off the map"...

This is how things work these days...

Originally posted by charles1952
reply to post by GLontra

 

I can claim it because a trade war is not the same as an economic war, which is not what Santorum was talking about. Try this as a possible alternative explanation:

"I don't want to become involved in raising tariffs and imposing quotas on Chinese goods. (THAT'S a trade war.) I want to compete with China on the basis of economic efficiency, governmental stability, freedoms, access to capital, a trained workforce, etc. On that battlefield we will pass China and return to being the unquestioned economic powerhouse of the world."

That makes a ton more sense than what is being claimed by Business Insider.

That's YOUR interpretation.

My interpretation is that Rick Santorum has threatened to wipe China off the map.

reply to post by GLontra

That's YOUR interpretation.

My interpretation is that Rick Santorum has threatened to wipe China off the map.

Only because you lack grammar comprehension.

Nothing more than that.

See here.

Originally posted by GLontra
He said: "I DON'T want to go to a TRADE war (...) I want to GO TO WAR with China".

How can you claim he was talking about "economic war" if the said "I DON'T want to go to a TRADE war "???

Two different sentences. In the first sentence, he is saying he doesn't want to go to war he wants to win. (As in, he doesn't even want to see competition in China)

Second sentence does not correlate with the first. In the second, he is saying he wants to go to trade war, win, and make America the best place in the world to do business.

This isn't that hard to comprehend. Although I do admit, Santorum has trouble verbalizing his thoughts.

He's an idiot, not much more than that.

Originally posted by GLontra

Originally posted by charles1952
reply to post by GLontra

 

I can claim it because a trade war is not the same as an economic war, which is not what Santorum was talking about. Try this as a possible alternative explanation:

"I don't want to become involved in raising tariffs and imposing quotas on Chinese goods. (THAT'S a trade war.) I want to compete with China on the basis of economic efficiency, governmental stability, freedoms, access to capital, a trained workforce, etc. On that battlefield we will pass China and return to being the unquestioned economic powerhouse of the world."

That makes a ton more sense than what is being claimed by Business Insider.

That's YOUR interpretation.

My interpretation is that Rick Santorum has threatened to wipe China off the map.

No its not. You are simply being obtuse and trying to push some silly agenda.

Originally posted by GLontra
How can you claim he was talking about "economic war" if the said "I DON'T want to go to a TRADE war "???

You are cherry picking ... read the entire quote in context with the conversation. Hey .. I get that you are bang'n on Santorum and don't like him and all ... but if you want to nail him then nail him on something he actually did. They were talking about economics and that China and the USA are basically in an economic war. And that's correct.

Originally posted by GLontra
My interpretation is that Rick Santorum has threatened to wipe China off the map.

Whatever floats your boat. Good luck with that.

Originally posted by MrSpad

Originally posted by GLontra

Originally posted by charles1952
reply to post by GLontra

 

I can claim it because a trade war is not the same as an economic war, which is not what Santorum was talking about. Try this as a possible alternative explanation:

"I don't want to become involved in raising tariffs and imposing quotas on Chinese goods. (THAT'S a trade war.) I want to compete with China on the basis of economic efficiency, governmental stability, freedoms, access to capital, a trained workforce, etc. On that battlefield we will pass China and return to being the unquestioned economic powerhouse of the world."

That makes a ton more sense than what is being claimed by Business Insider.

That's YOUR interpretation.

My interpretation is that Rick Santorum has threatened to wipe China off the map.

No its not. You are simply being obtuse and trying to push some silly agenda.

And why people who say that Ahmadinejad threatened to "wipe Israel off the map" are not "being obtuse and trying to push some silly agenda"?

reply to post by GLontra

And why people who say that Ahmadinejad threatened to "wipe Israel off the map" are not "being obtuse and trying to push some silly agenda"?

They are. Does that make your argument valid in some way?

Juan Cole, a University of Michigan Professor of Modern Middle East and South Asian History, agrees that Ahmadinejad's statement should be translated as, "the Imam said that this regime occupying Jerusalem (een rezhim-e eshghalgar-e qods) must [vanish from] the page of time (bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad).[12] According to Cole, "Ahmadinejad did not say he was going to 'wipe Israel off the map' because no such idiom exists in Persian." Instead, "he did say he hoped its regime, i.e., a Jewish-Zionist state occupying Jerusalem, would collapse."[13] The Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) translated the phrase similarly, as "this regime" must be "eliminated from the pages of history."[14]

Source

reply to post by GLontra

I don't know how I knew, but I just did, that this would either get steered to Iran or Homosexuality. GLontra could you please explain why you have the impression you do in the face of all the evidence and arguments against your position?

I'm always on the lookout for someone to have serious discussions with and I don't want to lose you unless it's necessary.

Threads like this are why this website has ZERO credibility.