The Greatest Battle of Our Time

[revprez]

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.

If you'd like to discuss NMD, I'm more than willing to do so. I'm not going to get into a debate about your personal opinion of me.

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

Mmhmm....

Rev Prez

[MKSheppard]

If you'd like to discuss NMD, I'm more than willing to do so. I'm not going to get into a debate about your personal opinion of me.

Trying to change the subject yet again, fuckstain?

[The Aliens]

You're mistaken.

Clearly I didn't know what I meant- thanks for pointing it out, retard.

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

Already done, see above, fucktard.

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?

Flase analogy, retard- what the States doing wasn't working, not working slowly.

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.

'With respect to Iraq-' so you lied when you said it was a major priority with the US.

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

Germnay did the same thing against a better enemy in less time with much greater effect. O.I.L wasn't the most decisive.

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.

Obviously, Iraq wouldn't be able to withstand an invasion by anyone- no-one did it because the UN would stop almost anybody else.

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?

Four times more men weren't fighting- and they weren't four times more powerful in terms of equipment. What do you mean, drama figures more heavily? Are you insane- the Germans did a better job against a better army in less time.

OP?

Original Problem- what supposed we're debating about, that you keep running away from.

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

That's what the fucking debate is about, retard! Conession Accepted.

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

You are, fucking moron- you claim democratization = transformation, if there's no democracy, tehre's no transformation.

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

You are a fucking imbecile! Thriving press is great, but if the people are being denied water and food by their regime then its a fucking problem!

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?

I wouldn't expect you to remember what we're debating about. Page three or therabouts, you claim that O.I.F. was the most historically significant, decisive battle in history, as per the Original Problem

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

Why isn't it inadequate? Double negative- you mean to say 'Why is it adequate', and that's your burden of proof, not mine.

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?

By capturing Baghdad, they did not instantly change the regime, as you have claimed in numerous posts.

Navies don't advance.

What are you, insane? What do they do, float serenly?

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

You honestly claim that transformation does not equal change?

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

Way to miss the point no-brain. So far you've claimed tat this debate wasn't about aliens (well spotted), claimed that you didn't say that O.I.F was the most significant, decisive battle in hostory as per the OP, forgot what the debate was bout, claimed that Navies stay still during wars, and that the only thing impressive about Hitler steamrollering France was drama, and then concede the debate by saying that you agree it wasn't significant.

YOU LOSE

[revprez]

If you'd like to discuss NMD, I'm more than willing to do so. I'm not going to get into a debate about your personal opinion of me.

Trying to change the subject yet again, fuckstain?

I would prefer to start a new thread. But if you're not interested I'll just continue with the current discussion.

Rev Prez

[revprez]

Clearly I didn't know what I meant- thanks for pointing it out, retard.

Hey, maybe we got off on the wrong foot. Hi. My name is Prez.

Already done, see above, fucktard.

Retard, fucktard, fuckstain, moron. Okay, I get it.

Flase analogy, retard- what the States doing wasn't working, not working slowly.

Presumably you'd be under the impression that your lawn mower is getting fixed.

'With respect to Iraq-' so you lied when you said it was a major priority with the US.

Dealing with Iraq has been a major priority of the United States since 1990, I think we can agree on that.

Germnay did the same thing against a better enemy in less time with much greater effect. O.I.L wasn't the most decisive.

How was France's Army in World War II superior to Iraq's Army in Iraqi Freedom? I don't recall US forces encountering any horse-drawn caissons. Also, if I may, if Germany in 1940 had overmatch comparable to the US in 2003, would the battle have been more or less decisive?

Obviously, Iraq wouldn't be able to withstand an invasion by anyone- no-one did it because the UN would stop almost anybody else.

So, just to be utterly clear, Iraq couldn't withstand an invasion by Kuwait.

Four times more men weren't fighting- and they weren't four times more powerful in terms of equipment.

I didn't address Iraqi war material, but there forces in 2003 were better equipped than France's in 1940.

What do you mean, drama figures more heavily? Are you insane- the Germans did a better job against a better army in less time.

I'm confused. What do you mean a "better job" and a "better army." And what does that have to do with decisiveness?

Original Problem- what supposed we're debating about, that you keep running away from.

I never addressed the historical significance part of the question--nobody's articulated a metric we could use in that respect. It sounds like you want to debate along those lines. I don't. Sorry.

That's what the fucking debate is about, retard!

Our debate or the thread in general? If you're such a stickler about exclusively adhering to the whole "OP," why are you on this tangent about transformation?

Conession Accepted.[/b]

Uhm...okay.

You are, fucking moron- you claim democratization = transformation, if there's no democracy, tehre's no transformation.

Are you suggesting democratization is something other than a process?

You are a fucking imbecile! Thriving press is great, but if the people are being denied water and food by their regime then its a fucking problem!

Sure it is, but you argued that nothing changed for these people. I pointed out two clear examples of change.

I wouldn't expect you to remember what we're debating about. Page three or therabouts, you claim that O.I.F. was the most historically significant, decisive battle in history, as per the Original Problem

No I didn't. I specifically said it was the most decisive battle in history. I never argued that it was historically significant, let alone the most historically significant. It might be. I don't really care.

Why isn't it inadequate? Double negative- you mean to say 'Why is it adequate', and that's your burden of proof, not mine.

Nonsense. You're objecting to the timescale for some reason. I want to know what that reason is. You're not going to score points by capriciously alleging logical fallacies.

By capturing Baghdad, they did not instantly change the regime, as you have claimed in numerous posts.

Sure they did. The Baathists ceased to govern. The regime changed.

What are you, insane? What do they do, float serenly?

Pretty much.

You honestly claim that transformation does not equal change?

No. I'm simply saying your objection to transformation as used popularly in reference to the Middle East is silly. Not necessarily wrong, but silly.

Way to miss the point no-brain. So far you've claimed tat this debate wasn't about aliens (well spotted)

Can you point out to me poster who mentioned "Middle East transformation" before I did?

...claimed that you didn't say that O.I.F was the most significant, decisive battle in hostory as per the OP...

Never even tried to argue that Iraqi Freedom was historically significant.

...forgot what the debate was bout...

This debate is about whether or not Iraqi Freedom is the most decisive battle in history. You also seem to think that we should discuss its historical significance. I don't, I can't identify a metric that would satisfy both of us.

...claimed that Navies stay still during wars...

No. Just that they either take to port or float serenely between actions.

...and that the only thing impressive about Hitler steamrollering France was drama...

That was your argument.

...and then concede the debate by saying that you agree it wasn't significant.

I didn't say I didn't think it was significant. I said I don't particularly care.

YOU LOSE

I'm sure you think so.

Rev Prez

[MKSheppard]

Ahhh, is there anything new to be gained from thsi thread? I think not.

+1
IBTL

[Steve]

I had to. Have you?

*points to copy of "The Influence of Sea Power Upon History 1660-1783" on bookshelf"*

Oh, this is rich. What "power projection theory?"

You're right. On further examination I shouldn't have said power projection. Jutland, however, does not disprove Mahan's remarks on control of the sea.

Why don't you first start by telling us how "power projection" became a theory and was central to anything Mahan argued?

I don't have to. You made the assertion that Jutland proved him wrong. Now back it up. Explain to us Mahan's thesis and how Jutland disproves it.

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

Very little. Yet the US also possessed a sufficient conventional fleet to deal with the enemy. A better case is Germany's interdiction campaign in the Atlantic, without such a fleet to support the subs. And we all know how that went.

Again, you've asserted that Jutland proves Mahan wrong. Explain to us how that is true.

[Iceberg]

Of our time? Well, given my spotty memory of recent history, I'd have to go with Pearl Harbor, the attack which dragged us fully into World War II. If it can be considered a battle.

The Battle of Midway was far more decisive than Pearl Harbor. At Midway, the American carrier fleet met the First Mobile Carrier Striking Force and sunk it, for the loss of only one, already-damaged carrier.

[revprez]

*points to copy of "The Influence of Sea Power Upon History 1660-1783" on bookshelf"*

Cool, then we're ready.

You're right. On further examination I shouldn't have said power projection. Jutland, however, does not disprove Mahan's remarks on control of the sea.

Sure it does. Mahan argues that fleet engagement, rather than communications, is the principle means of establishing and maintaining control of the sea. Jutland did nothing to further secure or threaten Allied shipping.

I don't have to.

Sure you do. It's pretty central to your rebuttal.

You made the assertion that Jutland proved him wrong. Now back it up. Explain to us Mahan's thesis and how Jutland disproves it.

Mahan argued that the destruction of the enemy fleet is the primary objective in naval warfare, and that the destruction of his commerce does not decisively advance strategic aims. The tremendous waste of life and tonnage at Jutland advanced nothing, while the conduct of the submarine war proved far more significant to the course of the war.

Very little. Yet the US also possessed a sufficient conventional fleet to deal with the enemy. A better case is Germany's interdiction campaign in the Atlantic, without such a fleet to support the subs. And we all know how that went.

Yet that demonstrates the important of destroying (or protecting) the shipment of war material.

Again, you've asserted that Jutland proves Mahan wrong. Explain to us how that is true.

See above.

Rev Prez

[Steve]

Sure it does. Mahan argues that fleet engagement, rather than communications, is the principle means of establishing and maintaining control of the sea. Jutland did nothing to further secure or threaten Allied shipping.

However, it did keep the High Seas Fleet bottled up in harbor and it maintained the British blockade of Germany. Because of Jutland the British maintained control of the seas, even if they still had to guard against the existing threat of the German fleet.

Sure you do. It's pretty central to your rebuttal.

There was nothing to rebut at the time, as you hadn't yet explained your reasoning. How can I reply to an argument not yet made?

Mahan argued that the destruction of the enemy fleet is the primary objective in naval warfare, and that the destruction of his commerce does not decisively advance strategic aims. The tremendous waste of life and tonnage at Jutland advanced nothing, while the conduct of the submarine war proved far more significant to the course of the war.

However, in WWI, the Germans still maintained a larger fleet more dangerous to the British than they had in WWII, a war in which the U-Boats never came so close to victory. And when the US entered the first war, the USN rendered the German threat void and we saw the decline of the U-Boat menace.

Jutland was an important development in that the Germans became afraid of ever again trying to break out of the blockade. Thus they surrendered control of the seas to Britain, but not without maintaining a credible threat against it so as to keep the British pinned in place.

Interdiction warfare is most effective, and most likely to work, when command of the seas is either on the side of the force doing the raiding, or at least the command is disputed. That is why American efforts against Japan were successful, particularly as the war continued and the Japanese were driven backward, while the German efforts failed. America contested and then gained command of the sea; Germany did not.

Yet that demonstrates the important of destroying (or protecting) the shipment of war material.

Which is an important aspect of the entire theory. The fleet protects one's own shipping, the lifeline of a nation's overseas empire, while stopping the enemy's and keeping the enemy's fleets in harbor and off the sea lanes.

There is more to Mahan than "kill the enemy fleet".

[Thinkmarble]

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.

[/quote]
Wordplay.
Please give criterias useable to determine if a political system is a democracy.

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.
[/quote]

You mean, that you won´t change your definition.

[revprez]

However, it did keep the High Seas Fleet bottled up in harbor and it maintained the British blockade of Germany.

That the Germans decided not to risk another dramatic surface fleet engagement with the British is as inconsequental as Jutland itself was to the course of the war. They might as well have had a soccer match and decided it meant nothing on the battlefield.

Because of Jutland the British maintained control of the seas, even if they still had to guard against the existing threat of the German fleet.

Yet the German molestation of the British fleet did nothing to change that fact, no more than the British stand against the Germans did anything to change the fact that cross Atlantic shipping was still vulnerable to German U Boats.

There was nothing to rebut at the time, as you hadn't yet explained your reasoning. How can I reply to an argument not yet made?

Well, I've already addressed how Jutland proved Mahan wrong and we're past the whole "power projection" thing. I think we can move on.

However, in WWI, the Germans still maintained a larger fleet more dangerous to the British than they had in WWII, a war in which the U-Boats never came so close to victory.

Which is a testament to the success of Allied ASW. Like I said, Mahan argues that climactic fleet engagements are decisive, not commerce raiding and any countermeasures that the victim employs.

And when the US entered the first war, the USN rendered the German threat void and we saw the decline of the U-Boat menace.

Really? How's that?

Jutland was an important development in that the Germans became afraid of ever again trying to break out of the blockade.

If the Germans were afraid to meet the British on a soccer field, it would mean nothing as far as the strategic objectives of either side was concerned.

Thus they surrendered control of the seas to Britain, but not without maintaining a credible threat against it so as to keep the British pinned in place.

Which speaks to the centrality of submarine warfare in WWI.

Interdiction warfare is most effective, and most likely to work, when command of the seas is either on the side of the force doing the raiding, or at least the command is disputed. That is why American efforts against Japan were successful, particularly as the war continued and the Japanese were driven backward, while the German efforts failed. America contested and then gained command of the sea; Germany did not.

Would the American effort to interdict Japanese shipping in World War II have been successful if Midway never happened?

Which is an important aspect of the entire theory. The fleet protects one's own shipping, the lifeline of a nation's overseas empire, while stopping the enemy's and keeping the enemy's fleets in harbor and off the sea lanes.

Granted, with reservations. Mahan never argued--in fact, he dismissed--this role for the battle fleet.

There is more to Mahan than "kill the enemy fleet".

That's the problem. There isn't. People tend to read Corbett's arguments into Mahan's writings a century after Sea Power was written. Mahan's cult of personality is so extensive we treat him as if he were a Clausewitz instead of a Jomini.

Rev Prez

[revprez]

Wordplay.
Please give criterias useable to determine if a political system is a democracy.

I was pretty damned clear. A literate man should be able to move on from that.

You mean, that you won´t change your definition.

Not my definition. The definition used by the Administration, the media, policy analysts and the academy.

Rev Prez

[Darth Fanboy]

Has anyone in this thread said "Wong vs. Darkstar" yet? THe Trek/Wars debate is obviously the most important issue humanity has ever faced...

[The Yosemite Bear]

not yet I was going to mention the first troll war agaisnt timmy....

[Thinkmarble]

I was pretty damned clear. A literate man should be able to move on from that.

Frankly put you weren´t.
You did not name one criteria if a political system fit your definition.

[The Aliens]

That's it- I give up. You have conceded the debate numerous times, as this thread is allegedly about 'The most signifcant, decisive battle of all time', and you don't even try to make it relevent. Then when someone brings up a point you can't answer with a slew of fallacies, you say 'that's a new debate' and refuse the change topic. Fucking hypocrite- you have no problem going on about how this was the most decisive battle in history (it wasn't a battle, one, and when someone says 'signficant, decisive' the missing word is AND, not OR) without once addressing the tread topic.

This is why you're a VI- you can't think rationally.

[revprez]

Frankly put you weren´t.
You did not name one criteria if a political system fit your definition.

Frankly put I was. I gave one criteria: the source of all sovereign power lies with all the people, not all or a piece of it with one man.

Rev Prez

[revprez]

That's it- I give up. You have conceded the debate numerous times, as this thread is allegedly about 'The most signifcant, decisive battle of all time', and you don't even try to make it relevent.

How can I concede a debate I never took up?

Then when someone brings up a point you can't answer with a slew of fallacies, you say 'that's a new debate' and refuse the change topic.

Really? Where?

Fucking hypocrite...

Acceptance whore. Seriously, why can't you come up with your own insults?

...you have no problem going on about how this was the most decisive battle in history (it wasn't a battle, one, and when someone says 'signficant, decisive' the missing word is AND, not OR) without once addressing the tread topic.

Iraqi Freedom was a battle, it was a single continuous action with a clear operational objective. It was the most decisive battle in history because it furthered a strategic aim faster and over a longer distance than any before it. And as I said, the parameters for measuring historical significance are far too subjective for serious discussion; nothing prevents me from objectively addressing part of the problem. Try as you might, you could not refute a single one of these assertions and their supporting arguments; you resorted to ad hominem instead.

This is why you're a VI- you can't think rationally.

You mean I just handed you your ass. I'll take this as your concession.

Rev Prez

[Thinkmarble]

For a 4th time:
How do you measure if in a political system "the source of all sovereign power lies with all the people, not all or a piece of it with one man" ?

Possible criterias would for example be:

Suffrage:
No group, with the exclusion of people younger then ...; is excluded from suffrage.
Individuals can be denied suffrage by a decision of the legal system (e.g. criminals, people not capeable to make their own decisions )

Elections have to be
- equal ( everyones votes carries the same weight )
- secret (noone can determine during the casting of the voter or after which was someone has voted )

But you know what, I have no longer an interest in debating you.

[MKSheppard]

How can I concede a debate I never took up?

Well, kiss your ass goodbye, Revprez.

[The Aliens]

How can I concede a debate I never took up?

You responded to my rebuttals, wankstain, that's what a debate is.

Really? Where?

If you'd like to discuss NMD, I'm more than willing to do so. I'm not going to get into a debate about your personal opinion of me.

Trying to change the subject yet again, fuckstain?

I would prefer to start a new thread. But if you're not interested I'll just continue with the current discussion.

Right there, asshat, you didn't answer the point and vaguely eluded you wanted to continue.

Acceptance whore. Seriously, why can't you come up with your own insults?

I don't need to waste time coming up with something creative, assclown.

Iraqi Freedom was a battle, it was a single continuous action with a clear operational objective.

By that logic, so was WWII.

It was the most decisive battle in history because it furthered a strategic aim faster and over a longer distance than any before it.

Distance means shit, it's the enemy your facing that makes a battle relatively fast or slow.

And as I said, the parameters for measuring historical significance are far too subjective for serious discussion; nothing prevents me from objectively addressing part of the problem.

Yet your very first post claimed that O.I.F. was the most decisive, significant battle in history, as per the OP.

Try as you might, you could not refute a single one of these assertions and their supporting arguments; you resorted to ad hominem instead.

See above. Transformation, even if we accept your ludicrous definition, has not happened, the regime did not magically change with the taking of Baghdad, regime change wasn't the primary objective, and 'constant contact' with the enmy is not impressive if it doesn't slow down the advancing force and consists of a few thousand individuals running out of the Capital City. If I insult as I'm refuting your points, it's not ad hominem, goat-fucker.

You mean I just handed you your ass. I'll take this as your concession.

Take it as whatever you like, but any rational observer can see you've been owned by at least three different people in this debate on different topics. I don't know where else you are, but unsubstantiaed bullshit doesn't fly here, kiddo.

Rev Prez[/quote]

[revprez]

For a 4th time:
How do you measure if in a political system "the source of all sovereign power lies with all the people, not all or a piece of it with one man" ?

By tracing all non-negligable paths to the expression of power back to their source. Any path that terminates with a individual or class that also governs disqualifies that system of government from the democratic category.

Possible criterias would for example be:

Suffrage:
No group, with the exclusion of people younger then ...; is excluded from suffrage.

Is the universality of suffrage necessary to define democracy.

Individuals can be denied suffrage by a decision of the legal system (e.g. criminals, people not capeable to make their own decisions )

See above.

Elections have to be
- equal ( everyones votes carries the same weight )
- secret (noone can determine during the casting of the voter or after which was someone has voted )

The broader principle here is that the governing body receives its consent from the people. You can devise any number of tests to determine whether or not a government adheres to this principle.

But you know what, I have no longer an interest in debating you.

Sure you do. Otherwise you wouldn't have dropped this post in the first place.

Rev Prez

[MKSheppard]

For someone who's from MIT you sure are a dumb motherfucker.

[revprez]

You responded to my rebuttals, wankstain, that's what a debate is.

Really? Show me where I debated the historical significance of Iraqi Freedom.

Right there, asshat, you didn't answer the point and vaguely eluded you wanted to continue.

What are you getting at here?

I don't need to waste time coming up with something creative, assclown.

No, but you apparantly need to bite your board idols in some desparate search for acceptence. They've got treatment for that, you know.

By that logic, so was WWII.

Walk me through it and let's see.

Distance means shit, it's the enemy your facing that makes a battle relatively fast or slow.

Distance is important. If you make no move for the objective, you'll never get there. The quality of the enemy forces relative yours does decide whether or not a battle is decisive; American overmatch is precisely the reason why Iraqi Freedom was the most decisive battle in history.

Yet your very first post claimed that O.I.F. was the most decisive, significant battle in history, as per the OP.

Really? Where? Point out where I wrote "IF is the most decisive and historically significant battle in history." Since you've obviously looked at my first post, if you can't quote me on this then you're obviously a liar.

See above. Transformation, even if we accept your ludicrous definition...

I'm not asking you to accept the definition. Gnash your teeth over it all you want. Call into C-SPAN complaining about it. It's your life, so act a fool if you want to.

...has not happened, the regime did not magically change with the taking of Baghdad...

Magic had nothing to do with it. When the Baathists ceased governing on April 4, the regime changed. What we do with it now is transformation.

...regime change wasn't the primary objective...

Sure it was. The Iraq Liberation Act makes it plainly the primary objective.

...and 'constant contact' with the enmy is not impressive if it doesn't slow down the advancing force...

1) The advance did slow down in the last fifty miles do to increasing contact with harassing forces along the rear.

2) I never argued that the contact was impressive, just that it was sufficiently continuous to consider Iraqi Freedom a battle.

...and consists of a few thousand individuals running out of the Capital City.

That seems like a pretty arbitrary standard as articulated. How'd you come up with it?

If I insult as I'm refuting your points, it's not ad hominem, goat-fucker.

True. You don't refute anymore (except when you're straight up lying) so it's ad hominem.

Take it as whatever you like, but any rational observer can see you've been owned by at least three different people in this debate on different topics.

Any rational observer would see my thoroughly thrashing three people who can't seem to look up from their logical buzzword pamphlets long enough to make sure they're accusations are on point. They'd also see at least two people who are trying, and miserably failing, to use deceptively constructed arguments to avoid meeting any sort of evidentiary standard. Third, they'd see two people in particular who have some inexplicable dispute with the common and approriate meaning of "Middle East transformation." Finally, they'd wonder why someone is wasting so much time and effort arguing with someone who's grasp of the material is amateurish at best. But like I said, I enjoy the conversation and I ain't madatchya.

I don't know where else you are, but unsubstantiaed bullshit doesn't fly here, kiddo.

Claim what I say is unsubstantiated all you like. Go with God, my son.

Rev Prez