They possibly meant "plenty of tools need to move chips".
A common problem that causes chatter and poor tool life is not taking a large enough chip. Large chips stabilize the tool (the rotation of the tool pulls it into the part) as well as allowing for a more continuous, uninterrupted cut (whereas too small of chips cause the flutes to have to re-engage the cut over and over, and the number of engagements and tool life have an inverse relationship).
True. My point was that it shouldn't take very much torque to match the cutting speed with the movement speed. Even if you increase cutting speed you can keep the same torque (for movement) by increasing movement speed. It should be a balancing act with torque (for movement) being fairly constant in the range to provide continuous engagement, with the cutting and movement speeds changing.
A common problem that causes chatter and poor tool life is not taking a large enough chip. Large chips stabilize the tool (the rotation of the tool pulls it into the part) as well as allowing for a more continuous, uninterrupted cut (whereas too small of chips cause the flutes to have to re-engage the cut over and over, and the number of engagements and tool life have an inverse relationship).