College Policy Debate Forums

TOPIC COMMITTEE => 2015 - 2016 Topic => Topic started by: msolice on May 30, 2015, 03:55:26 PM

Title: Military Presence- Bahrain Proposal
Post by: msolice on May 30, 2015, 03:55:26 PM
I think Bahrain would be good addition-

Title: Re: Military Presence- Bahrain Proposal
Post by: CouldaBeenaContenda on May 31, 2015, 01:10:38 PM
    MR. RUSSERT: (To Congressman Jack Murtha, on Meet the Press, June 11, 2006) You say redeploy. Again, Mr. Rove challenges that comment.

    Let’s listen and give you again a chance to respond to the White House.

    (Videotape, Monday):

    MR. ROVE: Congressman Murtha said, “Let’s redeploy them immediately to another country in the Middle East. Let’s get out of Iraq and go to another country.” My question is, what country would take us? What country would say after the United States cut and run from Iraq, what country in the Middle East would say, “Yeah. Paint a big target on our back and then you’ll cut and run on us.” What country would say that? What country would accept our troops?

    (End videotape)

    MR. RUSSERT: What’s your response?

    REP. MURTHA: There’s many countries understand the importance of stability in the Middle East. This is an international problem. We, we use 20 million barrels of oil a day. China’s the second largest user. All these countries understand you need stability for the energy supply that’s available in the Middle East. So there’s many, many countries.

    MR. RUSSERT: Who?

    REP. MURTHA: Kuwait’s one that will take us. Qatar, we already have bases in Qatar. So Bahrain. All those countries are willing to take the United States. Now, Saudi Arabia won’t because they wanted us out of there in the first place. So—and we don’t have to be right there. We can go to Okinawa. We, we don’t have—we can redeploy there almost instantly. So that’s not—that’s, that’s a fallacy. That, that’s just a statement to rial up people to support a failed policy wrapped in illusion.

    MR. RUSSERT: But it’d be tough to have a timely response from Okinawa.

    REP. MURTHA: Well, it—you know, they—when I say Okinawa, I, I’m saying troops in Okinawa. When I say a timely response, you know, our fighters can fly from Okinawa very quickly. And—and—when they don’t know we’re coming. There’s no question about it. And, and where those airplanes won’t—came from I can’t tell you, but, but I’ll tell you one thing, it doesn’t take very long for them to get in with cruise missiles or with, with fighter aircraft or, or attack aircraft, it doesn’t take any time at all. So we, we have done—this one particular operation, to say that that couldn’t have done, done—it was done from the outside, for heaven’s sakes.

Full transcript:
Title: Re: Military Presence- Bahrain Proposal
Post by: CouldaBeenaContenda on May 31, 2015, 05:34:12 PM
350 miles from Kuwait to Baghdad, 621 miles from Bahrain, 700 miles from Qatar (which I will forever pronounce as Kah-tarr') and 4,900 miles from Okinawa, all according to How Far is It? (, meaning the affirmative plan might need a workable, in-flight refueling mechanism plank if it relies upon ferrying in pre-positioned supplies from Japan.  

Funny thing is, Murtha's responses made even more sense than Jerry Ford's Poland remark, which I also agreed with, because I understood what Mr. Murtha and Mr. Ford were trying to say, even though they botched their expressions of it.

Upon further examination, I see that Okinawa is not really much closer to Baghdad than are the SAC bases at Presque Isle (5,513 miles) and Bangor (5,623).  Who'd'a' thunk it?
Title: Re: Military Presence- Bahrain Proposal
Post by: msolice on June 13, 2015, 08:08:59 AM
Supplemental Work