The Greatest Battle of Our Time

[Super-Gagme]

Tours would have to be one of the most significant battles of all time.

[revprez]

Please define and operationalize "democracy" and "islamofascist"

Democracy: "Government by the people; that form of government in which the sovereign power resides in the people as a whole, and is exercised either directly by them (as in the small republics of antiquity) or by officers elected by them. In mod. use often more vaguely denoting a social state in which all have equal rights, without hereditary or arbitrary differences of rank or privilege."

The Iranian government never divested the Shah of his powers.

Islamofascist is just a slang pejorative used to label any and all types of Middle Eastern authoritarianism.

Rev Prez

[revprez]

I'm just sick of the manner by which he conducts his "debates" (IE: argues and redefines over things to death)...

You can't do simple unit conversions without somebody holdin your hand.. It doesn't surprise me that your grasp of the language is dodgy. But I ain't holding it against ya.

plus his psuedo-polite backhandedness...

Kill'em wit kindness.

Rev Prez

[Thinkmarble]

Democracy: "Government by the people; that form of government in which the sovereign power resides in the people as a whole, and is exercised either directly by them (as in the small republics of antiquity) or by officers elected by them. In mod. use often more vaguely denoting a social state in which all have equal rights, without hereditary or arbitrary differences of rank or privilege."

What does the following mean:

"the sovereign power resides in the people as a whole"
"it is exercised either directly by them [...] or by officers elected by them"

And please give criterias to determine if a state is democratic or not.

Islamofascist is just a slang pejorative used to label any and all types of Middle Eastern authoritarianism.

*blink*
That is a definition void of any usefullness and even misleading.

[MKSheppard]

Tell me, how much of Japanese shipping was destroyed by carriers?

A fucking lot From Lloyds, listing every ship sunk iN WWII

Submarines 2,755
mines 781
Aircraft 1,063
surface ship or raider 223
E-boat/MTB 118
scuttled 117
other 56
unknown 298

[Sea Skimmer]

Tell me, how much of Japanese shipping was destroyed by carriers?

About 1.9 million tons, merchant and naval combine.

[HemlockGrey]

Tours would have to be one of the most significant battles of all time.

That's actually a matter of some debate. I doubt the Muslim force which invaded at Tours would have been capable of conquering Europe. St. Denis claims that the Muslims had 300,000 soldiers, but that is of course an absurd claim; probably no more than 60,000 soldiers had crossed into Spain originally.

Had Martel lost, I doubt the Muslims would have been able to march through Europe and conquer at will, because a Frankish defeat at Tours does not mean the end of Christian armies in Europe. They would have taken southern France and could probably have extended control into Italy, but then not only do they have to contend with hostile populace, European armies, and the Christian kingdoms remaining in Spain, they also are a bit overstretched.

[The Last Rebel]

I don`t think anyone even looked at mine.
They were:

The Battle of the Douros, after which Napolean`s armies lost the upper hand against the British and her allies.

The Battle of Yorktown, which secured American independence.

And the Battle of the Somme, which proved the uselessness of 19th century tactics in the face of 20th century weapons.

[revprez]

What does the following mean:

"the sovereign power resides in the people as a whole"
"it is exercised either directly by them [...] or by officers elected by them"

They are statements of democratic principles. The power is native to the governed, not the government. The government does its business with the consent of the governed. Specifically, the government is ultimately accountable, through some electoral system, to the people.

And please give criterias to determine if a state is democratic or not.

All sovereign power resides in the people. A state that invests such power into a monarch or some other official is not democratic. Baathist Iraq and Syria have elections, so does Jordan, yet power ultimately resides in dictators or royals.

That is a definition void of any usefullness and even misleading.

Well, you can nitpick about the definition all you like, it's not gonna change it.

Rev Prez

[revprez]

Tell me, how much of Japanese shipping was destroyed by carriers?

About 1.9 million tons, merchant and naval combine.

And if you wouldn't mind breaking that down, and then comparing it to Japanese shipping lost to unrestricted submarine warfare....

Rev Prez

[Sea Skimmer]

And if you wouldn't mind breaking that down, and then comparing it to Japanese shipping lost to unrestricted submarine warfare....

About 500,000 tons was naval, the other 1.4 million tons was merchants. American subs scored 4.78 million tons of merchant shipping sunk and around 500,000 tons of naval shipping.



But it doesn't matter or prove anything. While subs sank about half of all Japanese shipping, they would have sunk far less had it not been for surface ships and the carrier and land based forces all keeping most of the IJN busy and forcing it to move around in exposed areas. For example subs wouldn't have sunk Shokaku and Taiho (that's 65,000 naval tons right there) if not for Task Force 58 showing up off the Mariana's to cover the invasion of those islands, thus forcing the IJN to rush across the Philippines sea (and its patrol lines of subs) to give battle.

You can't look at such things in a vacuum, naval or any form of warfare is not like that.

[The Aliens]

Sorry, folks, I was busy all day.

Strawman. You brought up the capture of Hussein, not me.

Look, fucktard, you said it was a 'regime change'. Up until Hussein had been captured, he was still the leader of Iraq. If the States had have left without finding Saddam, he would have been back running the show in months, just like the last time someone tried to 'transform' the Middle East.

You mean like deficits?

Perfect example. Countries are trying continuously to get their trade deficit down, putting lots of tax money and budget surplusses to exactly that goal. If there's some guy in a country that you can defeat in a war with a few dozen casualties, you'll take steps to remedy the problem then, not in six years.

Nonsense. The Iraqi Liberation Act first and foremost begins with "An Act...[t]o establish a program to support a transition to democracy in Iraq."

That's great, but not the reason that bill was signed in the first place. That act was a response to WMD threat designed to make it look nice, not the other way around.

And several cities along the way. Most of those never touched the line thanks to the blocking forces.

If you can desegnate a small part of your force to stop a group of rampaging enemies and coontinue at full speed through the desert, that is not stiff resistance, that's a few people with guns looking to shoot something. I'm amazed at how you can continue to claim that they were constantly fighting the enemy when in reality the enemy managed to send a few hundred troops out of its largest cities!

Like I said, decisiveness has nothing to do with the bloodiness of the campaign, it has to do with the success of an operational objective in advancing a strategic aim. In this case, you have one battle, fought across hundreds of miles (with one brigade of 3 ID covering most of that distance in 40 hours) that in and of itself accomplished the primary strategic aim of the war--regime change.

Primary strategic objective of the war was finding WMDs, assclown, which is what Bush has been saying since 2003's SotU, then changed when they didn't seem to be having much luck. Also, driving ina straight line for the capital is not fighitng a battle- its driving.

I'm using it as the Administration, the Congress, the media, and policy analysts, and the academic community use it.

And it's a ridiculous phrase used in a specific context in this debate where it's not applicable. There have been hundreds of waaay more important battles in 'transforming' the Middle East than this joy-ride.

Hardly, the phrase is a useful, time-saving way to refer to an ambitious project of democratization in the region.

And it's not applicable. You're saying this was the most important battle in history because it started the 'transformation' of the Middle East, when the Mongols, Persians, Christians and Israelis have all done that.

If you don't like it...well, I don't particularly care. Take it up with them. I'm sticking with the lingo.

Way to ignore the English language then, retard.

Take a look at the first post in this thread. I'm trying not to hijack discussions.

Concession Accepted.

Hey, it's your call. I can find more interesting subjects to discuss.

Like how a joyride through the desert towards an enemy's capital meeting light resistance is, according to your horrible misuse of English, the most important battle in history?

I imagine we could all think of something more historically significant that the first campaign to transform the Middle East.

Oh, alright then. Concession Accepted.

[revprez]

Sorry, folks, I was busy all day.

Same here.

Look, fucktard, you said it was a 'regime change'. Up until Hussein had been captured, he was still the leader of Iraq.

Really? I think Bremer and the Governing Council would have something to say about that? What does Hussein's captured status have to do with anything?

If the States had have left without finding Saddam, he would have been back running the show in months, just like the last time someone tried to 'transform' the Middle East.

So your argument is that the previous regime will still be in power until the ocucpation ends?

Perfect example. Countries are trying continuously to get their trade deficit down, putting lots of tax money and budget surplusses to exactly that goal. If there's some guy in a country that you can defeat in a war with a few dozen casualties, you'll take steps to remedy the problem then, not in six years.

So your argument is that "regime change" is not a high priority because the military option was not exercised immediately?

That's great, but not the reason that bill was signed in the first place. That act was a response to WMD threat designed to make it look nice, not the other way around.

That's a nice theory, and I agree that the bill was designed to address US concerns about Iraq WMD. But what proof do you have that the regime change focus is not genuine? It seems your issue is with the tone of the debate at the time, with its emphasis on Iraqi disarmament, rather than the substance, which included discussion of Iraqi liberation.

If you can desegnate a small part of your force to stop a group of rampaging enemies and coontinue at full speed through the desert, that is not stiff resistance, that's a few people with guns looking to shoot something.

Iraqi tank positions hardly qualify as "a few people with guns looking to shoot something."

I'm amazed at how you can continue to claim that they were constantly fighting the enemy when in reality the enemy managed to send a few hundred troops out of its largest cities!

Try a few thousand in the Iraqi 51st Mech Division alone, which did fight before surrendering. The enemy attempted to disrupt points up and down the line, that they failed to get past the blocking forces has nothing to do with whether or not you can say the American columns were in constant contact with the enemy.

Primary strategic objective of the war was finding WMDs, assclown...

You're conflating the rationale for the objective with the objective itself. No amount of ad hominem will change that.

...which is what Bush has been saying since 2003's SotU, then changed when they didn't seem to be having much luck.

And when you can't make your case that the six year policy of regime change is just fluff, you accuse the Administration of switching horses midstream with no evidence. Sure, you can argue that the focus has shifted from the threat of WMD to the necessity for transforming Iraq. On the other hand, we'd only be talking about the reasons for defining the regime change objective.

Also, driving ina straight line for the capital is not fighitng a battle- its driving.

That's true, but it's not an accurate description of the US charge to Baghdad.

And it's a ridiculous phrase used in a specific context in this debate where it's not applicable.

You're entitled to your opinion. I'm going to continue using it.

There have been hundreds of waaay more important battles in 'transforming' the Middle East than this joy-ride.

You can redefine the phrase to your delight. However, I'm sure you can also expend the extra effort to accurately interpret my use of it. Besides, isn't this a pretty silly point to argue?

And it's not applicable. You're saying this was the most important battle in history because it started the 'transformation' of the Middle East, when the Mongols, Persians, Christians and Israelis have all done that.

I never said that this was the most important battle in history. I said it was the most decisive.

Way to ignore the English language then, retard.

So if we're talking about Ridley Scott movies, and I mention Aliens, are you going to argue that my use of the term is stupid because aliens is not defined in the dictionary as a movie? Don't be foolish, man.

Concession Accepted.

Uh...okay....

Like how a joyride through the desert towards an enemy's capital meeting light resistance is, according to your horrible misuse of English, the most important battle in history?

Like I said, if you have a problem with the phraseology, take it up with the Administration, the media, the policy analysts, and the universities.

Oh, alright then. Concession Accepted.

Yeah...okay....

Rev Prez

[MKSheppard]

And if you wouldn't mind breaking that down, and then comparing it to Japanese shipping lost to unrestricted submarine warfare....

You're a fucking tool, you know that? We tire of your bullshit, and see
through your evasive tactics of never standing up to a debate, instead
finding new ways to nitpick evidence. Either put the fuck up, asstard,
or disappear from here.

[The Aliens]

Really? I think Bremer and the Governing Council would have something to say about that? What does Hussein's captured status have to do with anything?

If the States had have left with Saddam in the country, Bremer would have been chucked out by a popular uprising in short order. Saddm being captured menat that the people wouldn't be able to re-install him, making it a regime change.

So your argument is that the previous regime will still be in power until the ocucpation ends?

Nice strawman. The 'regime change' would have been over in months with a Saddam lead uprising if he had have remained in the country.

So your argument is that "regime change" is not a high priority because the military option was not exercised immediately?

No, becuase no action of any kind to oust Saddam was made. Give me a non-military example of the States attempting to remove Saddam from power. (Trade embargoes, incidentally, are not going to remove Hussein, the States would have started new action after that as soon as they saw it wasn't working if it was a top priority.)

That's a nice theory, and I agree that the bill was designed to address US concerns about Iraq WMD. But what proof do you have that the regime change focus is not genuine? It seems your issue is with the tone of the debate at the time, with its emphasis on Iraqi disarmament, rather than the substance, which included discussion of Iraqi liberation.

Regime change was not mentioned until after the WMD threat was proven to be false. Regime change was a secondary objective.

Iraqi tank positions hardly qualify as "a few people with guns looking to shoot something."

And they also hardly qualify as resistance on the level of Stalin's tanks at Moscow against Hitler, yet you seem to be saying that this battle is on that level.

Try a few thousand in the Iraqi 51st Mech Division alone, which did fight before surrendering. The enemy attempted to disrupt points up and down the line, that they failed to get past the blocking forces has nothing to do with whether or not you can say the American columns were in constant contact with the enemy.

Sorry, a few thousand troops. Do you not see why this would have had no effect on the speed with which America can cross that desert?

You're conflating the rationale for the objective with the objective itself. No amount of ad hominem will change that.

Bullshit. The objective was to disarm Iraq, stated numerous times. Regime change was not necessary to declare victory, as America did in May with Hussein still 7 months from capture. There was no ability to control Iraq shown by Bremer, so the regime hadn't been successfully changed. In a modern democracy, a leader sets policies and is elected by the people, something Bremer didn't do.

Can you explain the difference to me between Hussein appointing himself to lead Iraq, and America appointing Brememr to 'lead' Iraq? If he wasn't elected, then the regime isn't democratic, and thusly not 'transformed', according to you.

And when you can't make your case that the six year policy of regime change is just fluff, you accuse the Administration of switching horses midstream with no evidence.

What the hell are you talking about? They did both- didn't care about ousting Saddamn until after Afghanistan, and then changed rationale behind it when the original reason didn't work.

Sure, you can argue that the focus has shifted from the threat of WMD to the necessity for transforming Iraq. On the other hand, we'd only be talking about the reasons for defining the regime change objective.

If the focus has shifted from WMD to rebuilding, without having found any WMDs, then that likely means there weren't any, which means Bush lied about the reasons for the war.

That's true, but it's not an accurate description of the US charge to Baghdad.

Driving in the general direction of the enemy's capital while evading several thousand troops isn't fighting a battle, it's driving.

You're entitled to your opinion. I'm going to continue using it.

I'm going to continue mocking your inability to understand English.

You can redefine the phrase to your delight. However, I'm sure you can also expend the extra effort to accurately interpret my use of it.

You claim that 'transforming' = 'democratization'. NEWS FLASH- Bremer wasn't elected, so its not democracy. Transformation failed.

Besides, isn't this a pretty silly point to argue?

Concession Accepted.

I never said that this was the most important battle in history. I said it was the most decisive.

It's not like France fell in six weeks against Hitler- where France had the Maginot line, millions of troops, and provided stiff opposition.

So if we're talking about Ridley Scott movies, and I mention Aliens, are you going to argue that my use of the term is stupid because aliens is not defined in the dictionary as a movie? Don't be foolish, man.

False analogy. What we're doing, is talking about aliens in general, where you mean only Aliens depicted in teh Ridley Scott movies count.

Like I said, if you have a problem with the phraseology, take it up with the Administration, the media, the policy analysts, and the universities.

You use the moron terms, you justify why they aren't moronic.

Rev Prez[/quote]

[revprez]

If the States had have left with Saddam in the country, Bremer would have been chucked out by a popular uprising in short order. Saddm being captured menat that the people wouldn't be able to re-install him, making it a regime change.

That's an interesting definition of "regime change." I'll stick with mine.

Nice strawman. The 'regime change' would have been over in months with a Saddam lead uprising if he had have remained in the country.

But just above you argued that regime change didn't occur until Hussein was captured. See? "Saddm being captured menat that the people wouldn't be able to re-install him, making it a regime change." Sounds like what you actually mean is there would be a return of the regime. Doesn't mean the regime was changed. Either way, it's a pretty silly argument to make. There is no indication that the US plans to leave before the new order can sustain itself.

No, becuase no action of any kind to oust Saddam was made. Give me a non-military example of the States attempting to remove Saddam from power. (Trade embargoes, incidentally, are not going to remove Hussein, the States would have started new action after that as soon as they saw it wasn't working if it was a top priority.)

I was going to say sanctions, but since you already addressed it, does the success or failure of course of action mean that said action isn't an effort to further the aim of regime change?

Regime change was not mentioned until after the WMD threat was proven to be false. Regime change was a secondary objective.

Wait, which is it? Was regime change a new objective or a secondary one? Or are you saying that it is secondary even now?

And they also hardly qualify as resistance on the level of Stalin's tanks at Moscow against Hitler, yet you seem to be saying that this battle is on that level.

No, I don't. All I'm saying is that the resistance was sufficiently continuous through to fall of Baghdad to consider Iraqi Freedom a single, continuous action.

Sorry, a few thousand troops. Do you not see why this would have had no effect on the speed with which America can cross that desert?

Actually, I do. But I'm not saying that America's overmatch wasn't impressive. In fact, I argue that America's overmatch is precisely the reason this battle was decisive.

Bullshit. The objective was to disarm Iraq, stated numerous times. Regime change was not necessary to declare victory, as America did in May with Hussein still 7 months from capture.

I still object to your argument that regime change occurred only after Hussein was captured. And yes, disarming Iraq was an objective, but hardly the only one and while the most prominently debated hardly the primary aim of Iraqi Freedom.

There was no ability to control Iraq shown by Bremer, so the regime hadn't been successfully changed.

Are you arguing that the mere presence of insurgency means Iraq is not controlled by Bremer and the Governing Council? Just want to be clear.

In a modern democracy, a leader sets policies and is elected by the people, something Bremer didn't do.

Yes, but I didn't argue that the transformation objective has been realized. Only the regime change one.

Can you explain the difference to me between Hussein appointing himself to lead Iraq, and America appointing Brememr to 'lead' Iraq?

Sure. Hussein is a brutal dictator who intended to rule for life and pass on authority to his kin. Bremer is a provisional authority until Iraq's democrats can take over.

If he wasn't elected, then the regime isn't democratic, and thusly not 'transformed', according to you.

As I said, the transformation objective hasn't been fulfilled, but the regime change objective has.

What the hell are you talking about? They did both- didn't care about ousting Saddamn until after Afghanistan, and then changed rationale behind it when the original reason didn't work.

I think it is quite obvious from Paul O'Neill's recent statements and Condoleeza's "radar" remark in 2001 that ousting Hussein was a high priority. And since the Administration did discuss regime change before the war, and that objective has been the offical primary policy goal of the United States with regards to Iraq since 1998, I find your argument that the Administration recently switched to that objective utterly without merit.

If the focus has shifted from WMD to rebuilding, without having found any WMDs, then that likely means there weren't any, which means Bush lied about the reasons for the war.

Assuming that Iraq WMDs never existed, are you arguing that deception is the only possible explanation for the disconnect between Bush's argument and this alleged reality?

Driving in the general direction of the enemy's capital while evading several thousand troops isn't fighting a battle, it's driving.

Also true, but that is not an accurate characterization of Iraqi Freedom.

I'm going to continue mocking your inability to understand English.

And I'll continue to shrug it off.

You claim that 'transforming' = 'democratization'. NEWS FLASH- Bremer wasn't elected, so its not democracy. Transformation failed.

Wow. Did you argue that Iraqi Freedom failed when after Bush announced the commencement of hostilities US forces weren't already stripping Baghdad of Hussein's images?

Concession Accepted.

Uh...okay.

It's not like France fell in six weeks against Hitler- where France had the Maginot line, millions of troops, and provided stiff opposition.

The fact that the German advanced over a shorter distance in a longer time speaks to their lack of overmatch compared to the Americans. The balance of forces in each case is precisely the reason Iraqi Freedom is more decisive than the Invasion of France.

False analogy. What we're doing, is talking about aliens in general, where you mean only Aliens depicted in teh Ridley Scott movies count.

Since I'm the one who first mentioned "Middle East transformation" and you're the one trying to redefine the definition in this discussion, your objection is baseless.

You use the moron terms, you justify why they aren't moronic.

Why would I? I'm not interested in what strikes you as stupid. I'm sure you could care less what I think of your position.

Rev Prez

[revprez]

You're a fucking tool, you know that?

So I've been told.

We tire of your bullshit, and see through your evasive tactics of never standing up to a debate, instead finding new ways to nitpick evidence. Either put the fuck up, asstard, or disappear from here.

How is comparing the success of submarines in bringing the Japanese economy to a grinding halt to that of aircraft carriers nitpicking?

Rev Prez

[MKSheppard]

How is comparing the success of submarines in bringing the Japanese economy to a grinding halt to that of aircraft carriers nitpicking?

YOu keep changing the subject of the debate, fuck it I can't even tell
what this thread was originally about, thanks to your bullshit redirections,
trying to avoid being smacked down.

[revprez]

YOu keep changing the subject of the debate, fuck it...

This is entirely related to the discussion of Jutland's decisiveness.

...I can't even tell what this thread was originally about, thanks to your bullshit redirections, trying to avoid being smacked down.

I think that the mere length of the discussion, given how easily distracted you are, is a more likely explanation.


Rev Prez

[The Aliens]

But just above you argued that regime change didn't occur until Hussein was captured. See? "Saddm being captured menat that the people wouldn't be able to re-install him, making it a regime change." Sounds like what you actually mean is there would be a return of the regime. Doesn't mean the regime was changed. Either way, it's a pretty silly argument to make. There is no indication that the US plans to leave before the new order can sustain itself.

That's why I put regime change in quotes, denoting that I wasn't using my definition. You really can't speak English, can you?

I was going to say sanctions, but since you already addressed it, does the success or failure of course of action mean that said action isn't an effort to further the aim of regime change?

Obviously. Say I'm going to mow my lawn, and my lawn mower breaks down. If I don't get it fixed/get a new one, I'm not trying- If one course of action fails, you take another one.

Wait, which is it? Was regime change a new objective or a secondary one? Or are you saying that it is secondary even now?

It was a secondary objective in the campaign. It was introduced late, making it 'new', and took a back seat according to Bush to finding WMDs. It was not, as you claim, the primary objective.

No, I don't. All I'm saying is that the resistance was sufficiently continuous through to fall of Baghdad to consider Iraqi Freedom a single, continuous action.

Bullshit, you're saying it had enough effect to significantly slow down American troops. If you weren't making that claim, then the fact that they crossed 300 miles of desert quickly would be irrelevent, since anyone in a Jeep can do that.

Actually, I do. But I'm not saying that America's overmatch wasn't impressive. In fact, I argue that America's overmatch is precisely the reason this battle was decisive.

Concession accepted. It took Hitler the same amount of time to run over France with a massive armed force and loads of defenses, where America was attacking a few thousand troops. it's clearly not the most decisive.

I still object to your argument that regime change occurred only after Hussein was captured. And yes, disarming Iraq was an objective, but hardly the only one and while the most prominently debated hardly the primary aim of Iraqi Freedom.

Again, bullshit. Regime change wasn't the given goal, disarmament was. Show me where regime change was a national priority before 2003's SotU.

Are you arguing that the mere presence of insurgency means Iraq is not controlled by Bremer and the Governing Council? Just want to be clear.

Nope, saying it doesn't count as decisive or significant, if the new government hadn't done anything, as per the OP.

Yes, but I didn't argue that the transformation objective has been realized. Only the regime change one.

You said all over the place that this battle marked the 'transformation' of Iraq! Did it or didn't it?

Sure. Hussein is a brutal dictator who intended to rule for life and pass on authority to his kin. Bremer is a provisional authority until Iraq's democrats can take over.

Appeal to motive- if he wasn't elected, its not democracy.

As I said, the transformation objective hasn't been fulfilled, but the regime change objective has.

Life in Iraq remains the same- the regime has changed, technically, but it made no diference. How does that make it the most historically significant, decisive victory in history, as per the OP?

I think it is quite obvious from Paul O'Neill's recent statements and Condoleeza's "radar" remark in 2001 that ousting Hussein was a high priority. And since the Administration did discuss regime change before the war, and that objective has been the offical primary policy goal of the United States with regards to Iraq since 1998, I find your argument that the Administration recently switched to that objective utterly without merit.

If it was a national priority, they would have done something about it when diplomacy wasn't working.

Assuming that Iraq WMDs never existed, are you arguing that deception is the only possible explanation for the disconnect between Bush's argument and this alleged reality?

I actually misrepresented my position there. I mean that since the WMDs aren't to be found, the primary objective of removing them cannot be completed, therefore by taking Baghdad, it didn't happen.

Also true, but that is not an accurate characterization of Iraqi Freedom.

It is according to your own arguments, retard.

Wow. Did you argue that Iraqi Freedom failed when after Bush announced the commencement of hostilities US forces weren't already stripping Baghdad of Hussein's images?

No, moron, I argued that if deomcracy didn't come to Iraq though US intervention, and Tranformation means democracy coming to Iraq through US intervention, then the 'transformation' failed.

The fact that the German advanced over a shorter distance in a longer time speaks to their lack of overmatch compared to the Americans. The balance of forces in each case is precisely the reason Iraqi Freedom is more decisive than the Invasion of France.

Umm, the Germans achieved the same objective as you claim (regime change), in less time, against a superior enemy (1940 France vs. current Iraq). That makes it more decisive. The Americans crossed the Pacific in weeks in WW2, does that mean that their advance towards Japan was the most decisive military victory in hstory?

Since I'm the one who first mentioned "Middle East transformation" and you're the one trying to redefine the definition in this discussion, your objection is baseless.

Let me simplify. All wars= All aliens
Real Transformation (Mongols, Persians)= All aliens (Vulcans, Klingons, Mon Calamari, etc.)
Strawman Transformation= Aliens as depicted in Alien series of movies

Now, if we're talking about all aliens, and you say it only applies to a certain set of aliens, you're defining it incorrectly in the context of the discussion.

[MKSheppard]

This is entirely related to the discussion of Jutland's decisiveness.

Which you changed to a debate over the effectiveness of aircraft carriers,
in your classic redirection move.

I think that the mere length of the discussion, given how easily distracted you are, is a more likely explanation.

And yet another one of your "classic" moves, heaping ad hominem
attacks on your criticizers. Get lost, Chuckles. No one believes your
bullshit anymore. At the very least, our ad hominem attacks are very
devastating. Durandal, if you'd mind?

[revprez]

This isn't terribly productive, MK. I concede.

[The Aliens]

Concession Accepted

[MKSheppard]

This isn't terribly productive, MK. I concede.

No attempt to defend your bullshit at all? Just
"This isn't terribly productive at all?"

For fucks sake, you make me sick to be on the same board as
you are. I did a epic battle with Patrick Deegan a few months
ago over the feasibility of National Missile Defense, and we went
at it for over four pages, and gave stats, links, etc until we both
bashed our heads into the ground and gave up. You haven't done
shit, except try and wriggle out with your cowardly little
bullshit.

Get. Off. My. Board. You. Fucking. Chicken. Shit!

[revprez]

That's why I put regime change in quotes, denoting that I wasn't using my definition.

You're mistaken.

Saddm being captured menat that the people wouldn't be able to re-install him, making it a regime change.

I even archived the page with this quote on it for you, it's right here

You really can't speak English, can you?

Yes I can. Care to tell me why you say you put regime change in quotes?

Obviously. Say I'm going to mow my lawn, and my lawn mower breaks down. If I don't get it fixed/get a new one, I'm not trying- If one course of action fails, you take another one.

If you do try to get it fixed and it takes some inordinate amount of time for it to get out of the shop, are you then not trying to mow your lawn?

It was a secondary objective in the campaign. It was introduced late, making it 'new', and took a back seat according to Bush to finding WMDs. It was not, as you claim, the primary objective.

But the Iraq Liberation Act clearly makes regime change the strategic aim of the United States with respect to Iraq. It is, as I said, the primary objective.

Bullshit, you're saying it had enough effect to significantly slow down American troops.

I never said that. I reiterate, America's overmatch is precisely why Iraqi Freedom is so decisive.

If you weren't making that claim, then the fact that they crossed 300 miles of desert quickly would be irrelevent, since anyone in a Jeep can do that.

Really? So now you're arguing that the Kuwaitis could invade and occupy Iraq as easily as the Americans have? After all, if anyone with a Jeep could make that advance then Iraq is just a house of cards anyone can topple.

Concession accepted.

Yeah...okay....

It took Hitler the same amount of time to run over France with a massive armed force and loads of defenses, where America was attacking a few thousand troops. it's clearly not the most decisive.

Iraq had four times as many men on the ground as the Americans, and the Americans defeated the enemy over a longer advance than that along which Germans defeated the French. That the Iraqi Army chose not to fight as stiffly as the French simply testifies American overmatch and the decisiveness of the battle. It now seems that drama figures in heavily in your definition. You want to pin it down before continuing?

Again, bullshit. Regime change wasn't the given goal, disarmament was. Show me where regime change was a national priority before 2003's SotU.

I already have. Refer to the post where I quote the Iraq Liberation Act.

Nope, saying it doesn't count as decisive or significant, if the new government hadn't done anything, as per the OP.

OP?

You said all over the place that this battle marked the 'transformation' of Iraq! Did it or didn't it?

I said this battle marked the beginning of transformation. Of course, I am not arguing its historical significance.

Appeal to motive- if he wasn't elected, its not democracy.

Yeah, but who's arguing that? You keep throwing up strawmen.

Life in Iraq remains the same- the regime has changed, technically, but it made no diference.

I beg to differ. Iraqi currency is stronger and there is thriving press. Those are key differences between post-war and pre-war Iraq.

How does that make it the most historically significant, decisive victory in history, as per the OP?[/qute]

What is this OP? And when did I ever argue that Iraqi Freedom was the most historically significant battle? Why do you have to put up strawmen?

If it was a national priority, they would have done something about it when diplomacy wasn't working.

Why isn't the timescale for testing diplomacy the Clinton and Bush Administrations apparantly were comfortable with inadequate?

I actually misrepresented my position there. I mean that since the WMDs aren't to be found, the primary objective of removing them cannot be completed, therefore by taking Baghdad, it didn't happen.

Fair enough, but I reject your premise that disarming Iraq was the primary objective of the battle.

It is according to your own arguments, retard.

Really? How so?

No, moron, I argued that if deomcracy didn't come to Iraq though US intervention, and Tranformation means democracy coming to Iraq through US intervention, then the 'transformation' failed.

I'll ask again. Are you suggesting that Iraqi Freedom failed to capture Baghdad because the capital wasn't in American hands instantly after the battle began?

Umm, the Germans achieved the same objective as you claim (regime change), in less time, against a superior enemy (1940 France vs. current Iraq). It makes it more decisive.

Only if your definition of decisive is a measure of drama.

The Americans crossed the Pacific in weeks in WW2, does that mean that their advance towards Japan was the most decisive military victory in hstory?

Navies don't advance.

Let me simplify. All wars= All aliens
Real Transformation (Mongols, Persians)= All aliens (Vulcans, Klingons, Mon Calamari, etc.)
Strawman Transformation= Aliens as depicted in Alien series of movies

I reject your premise that "real transformation" is what you say it is.

Now, if we're talking about all aliens, and you say it only applies to a certain set of aliens, you're defining it incorrectly in the context of the discussion.

You weren't talking about all aliens. You weren't talking about aliens at all.

Rev Prez