The Greatest Battle of Our Time

revprez · Post by **revprez** » 2004-01-23 05:58pm

The Aliens wrote:Transformation means 'change'. The Mongols, Persians, Crusades and Israel all changed the Middle East. Define it however you wnat, it's not making you any mroe right.

"Middle East transformation" specifically refers to the project to democratize the region. Here's a google search of the phrase in context with "democracy." If I were to drop "transformation" into a threat pertaining to revolution in military affairs, would you then proceed on this inane point that "transformation" has other meanings than the one appropriate to the discussion?

Rev Prez

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-01-23 05:59pm

revprez wrote:no, but it does mean I have a reasonably expectation that people who purport to be up on events in Iraq will be familiar with the phrase "Middle East transformation"--considering its prevalent use in the administration, policy analysts, and commentators.

Rev Prez

But not with your assumption of exclusive use. Democratization of the Middle East (a process for which success is still a rather premature diagnosis) falls under the category of "middle east transformation", but that does not mean "middle east transformation" must refer exclusively to democratization of the middle east.

A is part of the set B, but that does not mean B must refer to A.

Mayabird · Post by **Mayabird** » 2004-01-23 06:02pm

revprez wrote:
The Aliens wrote:Transformation means 'change'. The Mongols, Persians, Crusades and Israel all changed the Middle East. Define it however you wnat, it's not making you any mroe right.
"Middle East transformation" specifically refers to the project to democratize the region.

If I were to drop "transformation" into a threat pertaining to revolution in military affairs, would you then proceed on this inane point that "transformation" has other meanings than the one appropriate to the discussion?

Rev Prez

Ahem, YOU are the one with the stupid idea that "Middle East transformation" has only one meaning, which is the one the Bush Administration uses. We might as well say that the correct pronounciation of 'nuclear' is nu-cu-lar since that is how they say it.

revprez · Post by **revprez** » 2004-01-23 06:09pm

Mayabird wrote:Ahem, YOU are the one with the stupid idea that "Middle East transformation" has only one meaning, which is the one the Bush Administration uses.

It's also the one the media uses, the think tanks use, and academia uses.

Rev Prez

revprez · Post by **revprez** » 2004-01-23 06:11pm

Darth Wong wrote:But not with your assumption of exclusive use. Democratization of the Middle East (a process for which success is still a rather premature diagnosis) falls under the category of "middle east transformation", but that does not mean "middle east transformation" must refer exclusively to democratization of the middle east.

Nor did I claim as much. On the other hand, I am responding to charges that I "mov[ed] the goal posts." If the context wasn't clear enough for you, then I apologize. On the other hand, I find it hard to see how it could not be clear if people here have actually followed US-Near East affairs over the past year.

Rev Prez

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-01-23 06:12pm

revprez wrote:
Mayabird wrote:Ahem, YOU are the one with the stupid idea that "Middle East transformation" has only one meaning, which is the one the Bush Administration uses.
It's also the one the media uses, the think tanks use, and academia uses.

Rev Prez

Both the media and think tanks use whatever terms the Bush Administration does, which is why they actually tried to use the moronic term "homicide bomber" last year until they realized they couldn't convince people it wasn't stupid. And I have seen no indications that academia is now supporting the idea that "middle east transformation" has an exclusive definition like that.

revprez · Post by **revprez** » 2004-01-23 06:18pm

Darth Wong wrote:Both the media and think tanks use whatever terms the Bush Administration does, which is why they actually tried to use the moronic term "homicide bomber" last year until they realized they couldn't convince people it wasn't stupid.

Fox News still uses homicide bomber.

And I have seen no indications that academia is now supporting the idea that "middle east transformation" has an exclusive definition like that.

Well, you can always try a Google search and verify it for yourself.

Rev Prez

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-01-23 06:20pm

revprez wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:Both the media and think tanks use whatever terms the Bush Administration does, which is why they actually tried to use the moronic term "homicide bomber" last year until they realized they couldn't convince people it wasn't stupid.
Fox News still uses homicide bomber.

Really? That's hilarious; no wonder people think they're mouthpieces for Shrubby.

And I have seen no indications that academia is now supporting the idea that "middle east transformation" has an exclusive definition like that.
Well, you can always try a Google search and verify it for yourself.

Verify what? The fact that whenever the term is used lately, it always refers to the current example of middle east transformation, which happens to be democratization? That doesn't prove the term itself has become exclusive.

revprez · Post by **revprez** » 2004-01-23 06:22pm

Darth Wong wrote:Verify what? The fact that whenever the term is used lately, it always refers to the current example of middle east transformation, which happens to be democratization? That doesn't prove the term itself has become exclusive.

I'm not saying that it has. I'm saying that the context clearly implies a democratization project.

Rev Prez

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-01-23 06:25pm

Well, that was a lot of ado over nothing.

Anyway, returning to the thread subject, I still say it's Milvius.

Howedar · Post by **Howedar** » 2004-01-23 06:43pm

Battle of Vienna, 1683. For all intents and purposes it ended the threat posed to the West by the Ottoman Empire.

revprez · Post by **revprez** » 2004-01-23 06:45pm

HemlockGrey wrote:OIF will certainly have far-reaching effects; it already has altered the fundemental political makeup of the Mideast and has had broad political conquenses. But it doesn't compare to stuff like Thermoplyae or Milvian.

If this is because of the historical significance of Thermopylae or Milvian, then I won't pick at the point. As for decisiveness, Salamis might not have ever happened if the Spartans didn't stand at Thermopylae. Milvian was as decisive a defensive route as any in history, but it was the last in a series of defensive actions. Iraqi Freedom was an offensive action, continuous, and final in its achievement of operational objectives, fought across 350 miles of hostile terrain under constant enemy contact (light as it may be).

Rev Prez

Queeb Salaron · Post by **Queeb Salaron** » 2004-01-23 06:46pm

We all know that the greatest battle was Foreman vs. Ali: The Rumble in the Jungle.

Duh.

Howedar · Post by **Howedar** » 2004-01-23 06:46pm

No, there was not "constant enemy contact, light as it may be" unless you count dozens of miles without any contact whatsoever "light but constant".

revprez · Post by **revprez** » 2004-01-23 06:55pm

Howedar wrote:No, there was not "constant enemy contact, light as it may be" unless you count dozens of miles without any contact whatsoever "light but constant".

If you pick any battalion or smaller unit that may be the case, but both entire advance was engaged continuously with the enemy. When you start and sustain an advance at 25 miles an hour, peeling off blocking forces as you rush the capital, it is not inconceivable that the line isn't engaged in its entirety.

Rev PRez

The Aliens · Post by **The Aliens** » 2004-01-23 06:58pm

revprez wrote: Iraqi Freedom was an offensive action, continuous, and final in its achievement of operational objectives

,

The objectives which were given were to find WMDs (failed), later to remove Saddm Hussein (achieved), and when tat didn't seem to be going well, to bring democracy to Iraq (failed). When you complete one out of three objectives, you have not won a 'decisive' victory as you so claim.

fought across 350 miles of hostile terrain under constant enemy contact (light as it may be).

Rev Prez

Constant enemy contact doesn't include people running through the desert to surrender to you, retard. Driving a tank in a straight line for 350 miles stopping every so often to pick up surrendered enemies and buy gas isn't impressive.

Incidentally, you still haven't shown why it was one of the most important battles in history. Aside from there being only two or three actual battles in the whole war, the Mongols, Persians, Israelis and Christians have all gone into the Middle East to try and covert them to one way of life or another. The States are trying to convert them to democracy, but how can you show that it's going to be a lasting change, where the Crusades failed to convert them to Christianity and the Israelis failed to convert them to Judaism?

revprez · Post by **revprez** » 2004-01-23 07:07pm

The Aliens wrote:The objectives which were given were to find WMDs (failed), later to remove Saddm Hussein (achieved), and when tat didn't seem to be going well, to bring democracy to Iraq (failed). When you complete one out of three objectives, you have not won a 'decisive' victory as you so claim.

Those are strategic aims that overall campaign is designed to satisfy, not the operational objectives of Iraqi Freedom. Regime change remains that overriding strategic goal outlined by the Administration, it was the national policy of the United States since 1998. That has been achieved, and it was achieved in a single battle.

Constant enemy contact doesn't include people running through the desert to surrender to you, retard.

Why not? Since when did deciveness have anything to do with how many enemy you kill? Even so, the line was continuously engaged by hostiles for the first seven days and 300 miles of the charge.

Driving a tank in a straight line for 350 miles stopping every so often to pick up surrendered enemies and buy gas isn't impressive.

Incidentally, you still haven't shown why it was one of the most important battles in history.

I never sought to do so. I made that perfectly clear when Wong raised the issue. I'm quite sure there are more historically significant battles thatn the one that began Middle East transformation.

Aside from there being only two or three actual battles in the whole war, the Mongols, Persians, Israelis and Christians have all gone into the Middle East to try and covert them to one way of life or another. The States are trying to convert them to democracy, but how can you show that it's going to be a lasting change, where the Crusades failed to convert them to Christianity and the Israelis failed to convert them to Judaism?

I'm interested in that debate. Do you want to start a new thread in N&P dedicated to it?

Rev Prez

The Aliens · Post by **The Aliens** » 2004-01-23 07:17pm

revprez wrote: Those are strategic aims that overall campaign is designed to satisfy, not the operational objectives of Iraqi Freedom. Regime change remains that overriding strategic goal outlined by the Administration, it was the national policy of the United States since 1998. That has been achieved, and it was achieved in a single battle.

The capture of Hussein was not a 'battle'. If it had been such a large national priority, it would have been addressed before now, and they wouldn't have needed the WMD justification for it.

Why not? Since when did deciveness have anything to do with how many enemy you kill? Even so, the line was continuously engaged by hostiles for the first seven days and 300 miles of the charge.

You make it sound as if they were being fired on! If I drive through the city passing by people who don't make any move to stop me, am I in constant engagement with them?

never sought to do so. I made that perfectly clear when Wong raised the issue. I'm quite sure there are more historically significant battles thatn the one that began Middle East transformation.

Didn't begin transformation, retard, we've established that. Transformation began with the Persians.

I'm interested in that debate. Do you want to start a new thread in N&P dedicated to it?

How about you post a rebuttal, rather than a vague suggestion you'd like to talk about it? You start the debate with something productive, if it's worth responding to, I'll answer.

revprez · Post by **revprez** » 2004-01-23 07:35pm

The Aliens wrote:The capture of Hussein was not a 'battle'.

You can respond to all the strawmen you like.

If it had been such a large national priority, it would have been addressed before now...

That's a bold assertion.

...and they wouldn't have needed the WMD justification for it.

The Administration didn't need a WMD justification, or did you fail to listen to all the other arguments for pursuing this course of action?

You make it sound as if they were being fired on! If I drive through the city passing by people who don't make any move to stop me, am I in constant engagement with them?

Obviously you were watching the Cartoon Network during the war. The line encountered enemy fire every step of the way. There wasn't a single day in the four day advance to the outskirts of Baghdad that didn't have some part of the advance pushing hostiles out of the way of the charge.

Didn't begin transformation, retard, we've established that. Transformation began with the Persians.

You haven't established shit. You're just bitching about the use of the word "transformation" in this context. You don't like it? Then keep it yourself.

How about you post a rebuttal, rather than a vague suggestion you'd like to talk about it? You start the debate with something productive, if it's worth responding to, I'll answer.

I'm not going to start a new discussion with a rebuttal. If you don't care to continue along this line, then I'll stick with this one.

Rev Prez

The Aliens · Post by **The Aliens** » 2004-01-23 07:42pm

revprez wrote:
You can respond to all the strawmen you like.

You said it was a battle, prove it. It was several troops pulling Saddmn out of a hole, no shots fired IIRC.

That's a bold assertion.

Perfectly warranted, governments don't wait 6 years to address high priority issues.

The Administration didn't need a WMD justification, or did you fail to listen to all the other arguments for pursuing this course of action?

They weren't used at the beginning, the sole reason for starting the war was to stop Hussein getting or using WMDs. Democracy and regime change weren't even mentioned until weeks later.

Obviously you were watching the Cartoon Network during the war. The line encountered enemy fire every step of the way. There wasn't a single day in the four day advance to the outskirts of Baghdad that didn't have some part of the advance pushing hostiles out of the way of the charge.

Oh my! Several troops ran out of the enemy's capital city and started firing! Any other nation's capital would have had a massive campaign prepared to make the Americans pay in blood for every building they captured, not let them roll up with 'some part' of the advance engaing hostiles.

You haven't established shit. You're just bitching about the use of the word "transformation" in this context. You don't like it? Then keep it yourself.

You're using the word transformation and meaning whatever the hell Bush says it means. That's utterly ridiculous- a transformation is an ongoing process with any more historically significant battles, not something that started last year 'cause Bush thought it ought to.

I'm not going to start a new discussion with a rebuttal. If you don't care to continue along this line, then I'll stick with this one.

How about you refute it here then. You're just hinting you'd like a future discussion, without refuting shit. Post a rebuttal and I will repsond, fucktard.

Post by **The Yosemite Bear** » 2004-01-23 07:57pm

wait I just realized somehting

you said in OUR time, Erm I am not old enough to have been around for Tet, much less most of the board. Have there been any really great battles in the lifetimes of the boardmembers here?

revprez · Post by **revprez** » 2004-01-23 07:59pm

The Aliens wrote:You said it was a battle, prove it. It was several troops pulling Saddmn out of a hole, no shots fired IIRC.

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

Perfectly warranted, governments don't wait 6 years to address high priority issues.

You mean like deficits?

They weren't used at the beginning, the sole reason for starting the war was to stop Hussein getting or using WMDs. Democracy and regime change weren't even mentioned until weeks later.

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."

Oh my! Several troops ran out of the enemy's capital city and started firing!

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

Any other nation's capital would have had a massive campaign prepared to make the Americans pay in blood for every building they captured, not let them roll up with 'some part' of the advance engaing hostiles.

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.

You're using the word transformation and meaning whatever the hell Bush says it means.

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

That's utterly ridiculous

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

- a transformation is an ongoing process with any more historically significant battles, not something that started last year 'cause Bush thought it ought to.

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

How about you refute it here then.

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

You're just hinting you'd like a future discussion, without refuting shit. Post a rebuttal and I will repsond, fucktard.

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

Rev Prez

revprez · Post by **revprez** » 2004-01-23 08:00pm

The Yosemite Bear wrote:wait I just realized somehting

you said in OUR time, Erm I am not old enough to have been around for Tet, much less most of the board. Have there been any really great battles in the lifetimes of the boardmembers here?

Well, Hemlock did modify the parameters of discussion in the first post: "What was the most historically significant, decisive battle, ever?."

Rev Prez

Howedar · Post by **Howedar** » 2004-01-23 08:05pm

revprez wrote:Obviously you were watching the Cartoon Network during the war. The line encountered enemy fire every step of the way. There wasn't a single day in the four day advance to the outskirts of Baghdad that didn't have some part of the advance pushing hostiles out of the way of the charge.

So your criteria for "constant engagement" is every day, and you say the forces moved 300mi over those four days...

So... you've proven that Coalition forces came under fire at least every 75 miles? That wouldn't count as "continuous" to me.

revprez · Post by **revprez** » 2004-01-23 08:14pm

[quote="Howedar"]So your criteria for "constant engagement" is every day, and you say the forces moved 300mi over those four days...p/quote]

I count eight reported encounters on the first day, three on the second, four on the third, and four on the fourth.

Rev Prez