Pentagon Issues Rebuttals for Iraq Debate

[Autolykos]

http://www.forbes.com/entrepreneurs/...ap2817879.html

The Pentagon armed congressional supporters of the Iraq war with an unusual "debate prep book" on Thursday, packed with ready-made rebuttals to criticism of a conflict that has now claimed the lives of 2,500 U.S. troops. With the House beginning an election-year debate on the war, the Pentagon suggested lawmakers make the point that "Iraq will become a haven for terrorists, murderers and thugs," if the United States leaves "before the job is done." "We cannot cut and run," it says at another point, anticipating Democratic calls for a troop withdrawal on a fixed timetable.

Discuss.

- Rob

[Apeman81]

Regardless of one's opinion as to the propriety or legality of the war in Iraq, major changes have ensued.

A new government is establishing itself. A constitution has been adopted. A police and military force is being established. A populace is seeking normality and stability.

Forces dedicated to denying the normality and stability sought by the populace by way of the government they elected and helped to establish are engaging in terrorist attacks against the populace, aided and lead by foreign entities with Al-Qaeda ties.

To withdraw our troops from Iraq prior to the establishment of Iraqi forces capable of countering these forces would be an unwise course of action. Not only would it leave the elected Iraqi government in a precarious position, the probable outcome of which would be dissolution as chaos reigns, it would leave the people of Iraq open to the ravages of these enemies of the state. I find either of those outcomes to be a foolish path to follow.

Naturally, that precludes defined dates for withdrawal. Any attempt to establish a date by which time some action must be taken is folly.

[grandpa]

Quote by: Apeman81 Regardless of one's opinion as to the propriety or legality of the war in Iraq, major changes have ensued. A new government is establishing itself.

Mind you the one-person-one-vote idea was not what the US had in mind. Thousands of Iraqis had to protest in order to have such elections.

Grandpa h.

[Milton Bradley]

This morning on C-SPAN, we saw a great segment addressing the Repuclicans stalling the debate about future Iraq policy, and it's funding.


We saw Ron Paul ( R-Texas ) addressing the House, and saying "We are told that we are fighting in Iraq to keep from having to fight them here, but nevermind the fact that they ( the Terrorists ) are here, because we are over there."


He also pointed out that the Republicans always switching the topic when they attempt to talk about Iraq, and only wanting to discuss "terroism" in the broader context.


Then, the show stopper ( as far as I was concerned ) when Neil Abercrombie ( D Hi ), addressing the Republican stall tactic, stated that "we ( Congress ) are only trying to do what the Bush asked Clinton to do in 1999", and started quoting newspaper articles from 1999, where our Dear Leader is quoted twice, from different sources, at different times as saying "I think it's important for the President ( Bill Clinton ) to articulate his exit strategy for Iraq to the American people, and to set a date for departure".


Things must be somehow different now that he is the one in charge. I guess once you get inside the loop, and privvy to all the secret information, you become a little less concerned about what those outside the loop aren't privvy too. Good thing he is cantantly reassuring us with the old "don't worry" routine.

[Apeman81]

Quote by: Milton Bradley This morning on C-SPAN, we saw a great segment addressing the Repuclicans stalling the debate about future Iraq policy, and it's funding. We saw Ron Paul ( R-Texas ) addressing the House, and saying "We are told that we are fighting in Iraq to keep from having to fight them here, but nevermind the fact that they ( the Terrorists ) are here, because we are over there." He also pointed out that the Republicans always switching the topic when they attempt to talk about Iraq, and only wanting to discuss "terroism" in the broader context. Then, the show stopper ( as far as I was concerned ) when Neil Abercrombie ( D Hi ), addressing the Republican stall tactic, stated that "we ( Congress ) are only trying to do what the Bush asked Clinton to do in 1999", and started quoting newspaper articles from 1999, where our Dear Leader is quoted twice, from different sources, at different times as saying "I think it's important for the President ( Bill Clinton ) to articulate his exit strategy for Iraq to the American people, and to set a date for departure". Things must be somehow different now that he is the one in charge. I guess once you get inside the loop, and privvy to all the secret information, you become a little less concerned about what those outside the loop aren't privvy too. Good thing he is cantantly reassuring us with the old "don't worry" routine.

"Things must be somehow different now that he is the one in charge. "

Why yes, things are different. In 1999, the United States was not engaged in the open hostilities of a war in Iraq.

I know its a minor difference, but I thought I might bring it up.

[Autolykos]

Quote by: Apeman81 Regardless of one's opinion as to the propriety or legality of the war in Iraq, major changes have ensued. A new government is establishing itself. A constitution has been adopted. A police and military force is being established. A populace is seeking normality and stability.

Nothing we haven't heard for the past three years, Apeman. How many different elections have there been since "Mission Accomplished"? How many different governments? It's hilarious how the mantra repeats itself in the face of failure.

"Oceania is at war with East Asia. Oceania has always been at war with East Asia." :rolleyes:

Forces dedicated to denying the normality and stability sought by the populace by way of the government they elected and helped to establish are engaging in terrorist attacks against the populace, aided and lead by foreign entities with Al-Qaeda ties.

Oh good Lord. Could you at least entertain the possibility that there are many Iraqis who see the US military forces there as an unlawful occupation and seek to eject them from the country?

To withdraw our troops from Iraq prior to the establishment of Iraqi forces capable of countering these forces would be an unwise course of action. Not only would it leave the elected Iraqi government in a precarious position, the probable outcome of which would be dissolution as chaos reigns, it would leave the people of Iraq open to the ravages of these enemies of the state. I find either of those outcomes to be a foolish path to follow. Naturally, that precludes defined dates for withdrawal. Any attempt to establish a date by which time some action must be taken is folly.

Interesting. Before US military forces entered Iraq, there was no "terrorism" there. Since the invasion, there has been "terrorism" aplenty. I daresay that the arrival of US military forces in Iraq was the causal factor in the appearance of "terrorism" in that country. So, to say that to remove the causal factor will only make the effects worse is ridiculous.

On another note, it's also interesting that you use the phrase "prior to the establishment of Iraqi forces capable of countering these forces". To me, that translates to "prior to the establishment of the type of Iraqi government that the leaders of the US want". In other words, the government of Iraq seems more or less to be a puppet regime that does the bidding of its American "caretakers". Correct me if I'm wrong here.

- Rob

[Apeman81]

“Autolykos]Nothing we haven't heard for the past three years, Apeman. How many different elections have there been since "Mission Accomplished"? How many different governments? It's hilarious how the mantra repeats itself in the face of failure.”

American Independence was declared in 1776. The hostilities to establish that independence ended in 1783. America did not ratify a constitution until 1787 and did not establish the federal government until 1789. By what standard do you assess hilarity in reference to establishing a nation?


“Oh good Lord. Could you at least entertain the possibility that there are many Iraqis who see the US military forces there as an unlawful occupation and seek to eject them from the country?”

Your use of the term “many” detracts from your point. While, say, 50,000 may be looked upon as “many”; what relevance does that number have when compared to, say, 25,000,000? As such, it becomes meaningless.

However, the overall point; that there those in Iraq who “see the US military forces there as an unlawful occupation and seek to eject them from the country?” still stands as a valid observation. The answer is rather obvious; yes. So what?

What comes in to question is not whether opposition exists, but rather whether or not that opposition is sufficient to become the determining factor for future operations. In this case, I agree to disagree, my belief being that the opposition, in its ability to represent the people of Iraq, its motivation, and its methods, falls short or reaching the level required to cease our objectives.

“Interesting. Before US military forces entered Iraq, there was no "terrorism" there. Since the invasion, there has been "terrorism" aplenty. I daresay that the arrival of US military forces in Iraq was the causal factor in the appearance of "terrorism" in that country. So, to say that to remove the causal factor will only make the effects worse is ridiculous.”

To say that there “was no "terrorism" in Iraq is to ignore the mass graves, the gassed citizenry, the rape rooms, the torture chambers of the oppressive regime that existed during the dictatorship of Saddam. I choose not to ignore them.

“On another note, it's also interesting that you use the phrase "prior to the establishment of Iraqi forces capable of countering these forces". To me, that translates to "prior to the establishment of the type of Iraqi government that the leaders of the US want". In other words, the government of Iraq seems more or less to be a puppet regime that does the bidding of its American "caretakers". Correct me if I'm wrong here. ”

You gratuitously state that “the government of Iraq seems more or less to be a puppet regime that does the bidding of its American "caretakers".” A gratuitous assertion can be as gratuitously ignored.

What puzzles me is “Correct me if I'm wrong here. ”. What is there to correct? You have presented no evidence, much less reasoning, for your statement. How do you propose I correct you?

[dreamer]

Quote by: Apeman81 “ “Oh good Lord. Could you at least entertain the possibility that there are many Iraqis who see the US military forces there as an unlawful occupation and seek to eject them from the country?”

I could entertain people need to feed their familys.Dreamer