The Greatest Battle of Our Time

[Sea Skimmer]

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?

Its not nitpicking, it's being a retarded moron who does not comprehend that naval warfare is an integrated effort. How your puny brain wants to releate it to Jutland I have no idea.

[MKSheppard]

I've proven that I'm a fucking genus! All of you can go suck my
cock while I go give a blow job to my beloved friend, Mr. Eddie
at the Sunny Farms Stud Farm!

MMMM HORSE COCK, HOW I LOVE IT!

Okay, you've gone off the deep end here.

[revprez]

Its not nitpicking, it's being a retarded moron who does not comprehend that naval warfare is an integrated effort.

How does comparing the performance of aircraft carriers and submarines indicate unfamiliarity with the conduct of naval warfare?

How your puny brain wants to releate it to Jutland I have no idea.

If you'd read Mahan, you'd know.

Rev Prez

[Iceberg]

Revprez never answered my question of what he "drinks too much" of, leading me to believe that the answer is "cocaine-laced malt liquor."

[revprez]

Revprez never answered my question of what he "drinks too much" of, leading me to believe that the answer is "cocaine-laced malt liquor."

You're partly right. I drink malt liquor, but not laced with anything and definitely not too much of it. You still doing wine and cheese?

Rev Prez

[MKSheppard]

If you'd read the Horse Bestiality FAQ, you'd know.

Rev Prez

Okay, you're starting to weird me out here. The last time we had someone
like this they ended up flamin out spectacularly

[Sea Skimmer]

How does comparing the performance of aircraft carriers and submarines indicate unfamiliarity with the conduct of naval warfare?

Simple, neither would have accomplished what it did without the other. Looking at each one in a void gives your meaningless data.

If you'd read Mahan, you'd know.

I have. So why don't you explain it all for everyone rather then constantly dodging the issue?

[Iceberg]

Its not nitpicking, it's being a retarded moron who does not comprehend that naval warfare is an integrated effort.

How does comparing the performance of aircraft carriers and submarines indicate unfamiliarity with the conduct of naval warfare?

How your puny brain wants to releate it to Jutland I have no idea.

If you'd read Mahan, you'd know.

Rev Prez

Too bad Jutland does NOT, as you claim, disprove Mahan's thesis; indeed it SUPPORTS Mahan's thesis. After the Battle of Jutland, the High Seas Fleet was unable to conduct operations on the Atlantic, leaving the U-boat fleet to the tender mercies of Allied anti-submarine operations, which could now operate independently of capital ships. As a result, U-boat effectiveness became degraded, and the Allied merchant fleet, while still at risk, became orders of magnitude safer. All this is a DIRECT result of the High Seas Fleet's withdrawal at Jutland, to preserve itself rather than suffer defeat and loss at the hands of the Grand Fleet of the Royal Navy.

[The Aliens]

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

Operation Iraqi Freedom, followed by Thermopylae.

That was in response to a topic asking for the most historically significant, decisive battle ever. (Significant, decisive mean BOTH, not one or the other).

What are you getting at here?

You claimed that you hadn't evaded a point, I showed you an example of where you did? Simple enough?

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

Look, wankstain, I debate all members of this board when I think they're wrong, I don't run around agreeing with everybody. If I was idolising people, I would tack on something to the effect of "yeah, me too" in these threads, not attack your ludicrous claims myself.

Walk me through it and let's see.

My bad, I meant World War One, excuse the typo. It was fouhgt with one strategic aim (stopping Germnay, Austro-Hungary and Italy) by taking their capitals, in constant enemy contact (trench warfare). According to your logic, it was one battle.

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.

Bullshit- if someone achieves the same result in less time against a greater enemy, it is more decisive. Germany squashed France, America squashed Iraq- the difference here is that France had good defenses, a large army, and a plan against German attack.

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.

Operation Iraqi Freedom, followed by Thermopylae.

That was a repsonse to a thread asking for the most historically significant, decisive victory in history, even if you claim to have miraculously changed the subject topic to cater to your whims, you didn't qualify your answer with anything.

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.

You persist on being an idiot. When AMerica took Baghdad, the 'regime' did not instantly change.

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

The reason for the war was to disarm Iraq's WMDs, not change it's regime.

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.

Oh dear! It slowed down as they approached the capital city! No fucking kidding, but it doesn't count as military engagements of any other battle in history, such as Ypres, Vimy Ridge, The Somme, Berlin, France or the Danzig Corridor. And if you consider contact at long rnages with sporadic fire to be continuous contact, you claim that WWI was one long battle.

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

You gave me the numbers back on page 7, retard.

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

Yes, when I call your bullshit claims about transformation not meaning hange, navies not moving, and democratization not meaning the people get to vote, I'm lying.

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.

Wow, Sea Skimmer, you've just been thrashed by revprez! I'm sure you're as surprised as everyone else that read that moronic statement.

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.

The numbers you produce aren't evidence then? Thanks.

Third, they'd see two people in particular who have some inexplicable dispute with the common and approriate meaning of "Middle East transformation."

Transformation means change, fucktard, if you don't like English, don't use it.

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.

I don't know why I'm bothering either.

But like I said, I enjoy the conversation and I ain't madatchya.

That's great, because your ridiculous double-talk makes me wnat to put my face through a plate-glass window.

[Iceberg]

Revprez never answered my question of what he "drinks too much" of, leading me to believe that the answer is "cocaine-laced malt liquor."

You're partly right. I drink malt liquor, but not laced with anything and definitely not too much of it. You still doing wine and cheese?

I presume that's supposed to be an insult? It's not a very good one.

Malt liquor, on the other hand, is an insult. Drink beer, it's better.

[revprez]

Simple, neither would have accomplished what it did without the other.

I wouldn't go that far, but no one in this thread is arguing that raiding commerce and engaging enemy fleets are integrated components of the sea control mission.

Looking at each one in a void gives your meaningless data.

Hardly. If we don't consider their performances separately, you could argue that aircraft carriers sunk all those merchentmen the subs tagged.

I have. So why don't you explain it all for everyone rather then constantly dodging the issue?

I sincerely doubt it. Otherwise we wouldn't be having this discussion. You might also want to read my response to Steve before you accuse me of dodging the issue.

Rev Prez

[revprez]

I presume that's supposed to be an insult? It's not a very good one.

Sure it is, Poindexter. Or are you the type who drinks Guiness and plays with swords?

Malt liquor, on the other hand, is an insult. Drink beer, it's better.

Malt liquor tastes better, it's cheaper to buy nine 40s than a thirty case of Bud, and it's 8% alcohol.

Rev Prez

[Iceberg]

I presume that's supposed to be an insult? It's not a very good one.

Sure it is, Poindexter. Or are you the type who drinks Guiness and plays with swords?

Ah, Guinness. Not my favorite, but I won't turn my nose up if it's offered. And "plays" with swords is such a crude term. Considering that I study with a ni-dan black belt in Toyama-ryu battou-do. What's that sound? Oh, that's just you eating your foot.

Malt liquor, on the other hand, is an insult. Drink beer, it's better.

Malt liquor tastes better,

No, malt liquor is sweeter. There's a difference here.

it's cheaper to buy nine 40s than a thirty case of Bud, and it's 8% alcohol.

Life's too short to drink cheap booze. And anybody drinking Bud above the age of twenty-three needs to have their beer glass revoked. I guarantee you that I get more enjoyment out of a twelve-dollar six-pack of Stiegl pils than you do out of your 360 ounces of liquid crack - AND I still remember what I did at the end of my night.

[revprez]

That was in response to a topic asking for the most historically significant, decisive battle ever. (Significant, decisive mean BOTH, not one or the other).

Liar. Check the subject heading.

The most decisive battles of all time?

You claimed that you hadn't evaded a point, I showed you an example of where you did? Simple enough?

You gotta spell this one out for me. What point did I evade?

Look, wankstain, I debate all members of this board when I think they're wrong, I don't run around agreeing with everybody.

I'm sure you're so feverishly into "debating" (not what I would call it) that you frequently stumble onto arguments you can't possibly sustain. So you adopt the flashy, rapid fire ad hominem of some earlier poster to cover your batch of unsubstantiated claims and rebuttals, crude missteps, and outright lies.

If I was idolising people, I would tack on something to the effect of "yeah, me too" in these threads, not attack your ludicrous claims myself.

Well, mimickry is a form of flattery. I think you're sufficiently imaginative to write more than "me too." Even MKShep, who doesn't address anything, is more creative than a simple "yeah, me too."

My bad, I meant World War One, excuse the typo.

I'm pretty friendly about that sort of thing.

It was fouhgt with one strategic aim (stopping Germnay, Austro-Hungary and Italy) by taking their capitals, in constant enemy contact (trench warfare). According to your logic, it was one battle.

Yes, defeating the Axis was a strategic aim, taking Berlin, Vienna and Rome are three of many independent operational objectives to further that aim. There were no independent objectives of major combat operations before the capital fell, USCENTCOM's aim was always to seize the capital and destroy all enemy forces who interfered. Also, contact was not continuous. Forces met on the field in a given period of time until one side or both quit the field to rest--thus resulting in a series of individual battles each with an identifiable (if not entirely fruitful) operational objective.

Bullshit- if someone achieves the same result in less time against a greater enemy, it is more decisive.

Answer my question. If Germany had piled in even greater strength into the invasion of France than it did historically, how would that have affected the decisiveness of the operation?

Germany squashed France, America squashed Iraq- the difference here is that France had good defenses, a large army, and a plan against German attack.

See above.

That was a repsonse to a thread asking for the most historically significant, decisive victory in history, even if you claim to have miraculously changed the subject topic to cater to your whims, you didn't qualify your answer with anything.

Maybe I was too quick to call you a liar, given that the subject heading of that post is pretty damned small. I suggest you read it.

You persist on being an idiot. When AMerica took Baghdad, the 'regime' did not instantly change.

Uh, could you be a little more clear here?

The reason for the war was to disarm Iraq's WMDs, not change it's regime.

We've been over this. Iraqi WMD is a reason for both the disarmament and regime change objectives, but the long standing and predominant objective with regard to Iraq was regime change. Furthermore, disarmament is not an independent objective. The Administration made it clear that the conditions for success in the regime change mission would be satisfied if Iraq came into compliance with disarmament conventions.

Oh dear! It slowed down as they approached the capital city! No fucking kidding, but it doesn't count as military engagements of any other battle in history, such as Ypres, Vimy Ridge, The Somme, Berlin, France or the Danzig Corridor. And if you consider contact at long rnages with sporadic fire to be continuous contact, you claim that WWI was one long battle.

And like I said. You seem to think drama is what makes battles decisive. Aside from the fact that there's no purpose of value to such a definition, the US armed forces define decisiveness as the rapid achievement of an action's interdependant operational objectives over distance.

You gave me the numbers back on page 7, retard.

That's not what I asked, homey.

Yes, when I call your bullshit claims about transformation not meaning hange, navies not moving, and democratization not meaning the people get to vote, I'm lying.

Yes, essentially you are.

Wow, Sea Skimmer, you've just been thrashed by revprez! I'm sure you're as surprised as everyone else that read that moronic statement.

More ad hominem. Keep it up, your frustration is telling.

The numbers you produce aren't evidence then? Thanks.

So you admit that your arguments satisfy no evidentiary standard. You're debating in a vacuum.

Transformation means change, fucktard, if you don't like English, don't use it.

"Middle Eastern transformation" means spreading democracy through the region. If you don't like it, tough.

I don't know why I'm bothering either.

I don't know, either. If you want to avoid getting thrashed so badly you should at least skim some of the material before making an ass of yourself.

That's great, because your ridiculous double-talk makes me wnat to put my face through a plate-glass window.

I wouldn't try and stop you. Your issues are your issues.

Rev Prez

[revprez]

Ah, Guinness. Not my favorite, but I won't turn my nose up if it's offered. And "plays" with swords is such a crude term. Considering that I study with a ni-dan black belt in Toyama-ryu battou-do. What's that sound? Oh, that's just you eating your foot.

So you're the type who drinks Guiness and plays with swords.

No, malt liquor is sweeter. There's a difference here.

Possibly. I'm sticking with the "it tastes better" theory.

Life's too short to drink cheap booze.

To each his own.

And anybody drinking Bud above the age of twenty-three needs to have their beer glass revoked.

People still drinking out of beer mugs at 23 can stay the hell out of my stash.

I guarantee you that I get more enjoyment out of a twelve-dollar six-pack of Stiegl pils than you do out of your 360 ounces of liquid crack - AND I still remember what I did at the end of my night.

If you still remember what you did at the end of the night, then Stiegl can't possibly be all that good.

Rev Prez

[Iceberg]

Wow, this just gets better. Do you need a shovel, Revprez? Because you seem to be doing a great job of digging yourself into a hole without one.

You know, generally it's a good idea to remember what you did at the end of the night. The highlights, at least (I never said I remembered EVERYTHING I did). Because if you banged a hot chick, it's nice to remember, "Damn, I banged a hot chick tonight." And if you threw up on a cop's shoes, it's essential to remember, "Damn, I need to call my lawyer tomorrow."

BTW, pro tip here, you drink beer out of a glass for the same reason you drink any alcoholic beverage out of a glass: Because drinking it right out of the bottle kills most of the flavor. Which, if you're drinking malt liquor, is probably a plus.

[revprez]

Wow, this just gets better. Do you need a shovel, Revprez? Because you seem to be doing a great job of digging yourself into a hole without one.

What hole?

You know, generally it's a good idea to remember what you did at the end of the night.

I disagree. I have more fun hearing the stories the next day--it's like watching a new episode rather than repeat.

The highlights, at least (I never said I remembered EVERYTHING I did).

In that case, granted.

Because if you banged a hot chick, it's nice to remember, "Damn, I banged a hot chick tonight."

I don't know about you, but I like to be surprised in the morning with the instant replay.

And if you threw up on a cop's shoes, it's essential to remember, "Damn, I need to call my lawyer tomorrow."

Yeah, but I'm too smooth to pull shit like that.

BTW, pro tip here, you drink beer out of a glass for the same reason you drink any alcoholic beverage out of a glass: Because drinking it right out of the bottle kills most of the flavor. Which, if you're drinking malt liquor, is probably a plus.

I like the texture of malt liquor flowing right out of the bottle.

Rev Prez

[MKSheppard]

I like the texture of horse cum flowing right out of it's cock.

Rev Prez

Wow, who knew RevPrez was this depraved

[The Aliens]

Liar. Check the subject heading.

Then you've hijacked the topic, retard- what you claim to be debating about and what the thread is about are completely different. This from someone who continually offers to make a new topic to avoid getting off-track. Hypocrite.

You gotta spell this one out for me. What point did I evade?

You dodged Shep, and then hinted you'd liek to continue in another topic.

I'm sure you're so feverishly into "debating" (not what I would call it) that you frequently stumble onto arguments you can't possibly sustain. So you adopt the flashy, rapid fire ad hominem of some earlier poster to cover your batch of unsubstantiated claims and rebuttals, crude missteps, and outright lies.

At what point in this debate have I answered a major point with a personal attack and not a rebuttal?

Well, mimickry is a form of flattery. I think you're sufficiently imaginative to write more than "me too." Even MKShep, who doesn't address anything, is more creative than a simple "yeah, me too."

You lose, and attempt to decry the others' debating skills- that makes you less impressive, not more.

Yes, defeating the Axis was a strategic aim, taking Berlin, Vienna and Rome are three of many independent operational objectives to further that aim. There were no independent objectives of major combat operations before the capital fell,

So all those battles for the ports and Um Qasar were ficticious?

USCENTCOM's aim was always to seize the capital and destroy all enemy forces who interfered.

As was teh Triple Entente's goal.

Also, contact was not continuous. Forces met on the field in a given period of time until one side or both quit the field to rest--thus resulting in a series of individual battles each with an identifiable (if not entirely fruitful) operational objective.

Bullshit, if everyone had have packed up and left their trench, the enemy would have advanced into it. The majority of that war was spend waiting in trenches with enemies 100 metres away.

Answer my question. If Germany had piled in even greater strength into the invasion of France than it did historically, how would that have affected the decisiveness of the operation?

Red Herring. Germany squashed a superior enemy in less time than America did. Even if Germnay's invasion had been successfully completed in one hour, it's still more effective than America's.

Maybe I was too quick to call you a liar, given that the subject heading of that post is pretty damned small. I suggest you read it.

I suggest you stay on topic.

Uh, could you be a little more clear here?

When America took Baghdad, the regime did not spontaneously change.

We've been over this. Iraqi WMD is a reason for both the disarmament and regime change objectives, but the long standing and predominant objective with regard to Iraq was regime change. Furthermore, disarmament is not an independent objective. The Administration made it clear that the conditions for success in the regime change mission would be satisfied if Iraq came into compliance with disarmament conventions.

If it was a major priority, it would have been accomplished before Bush and Attoney General Asshat made the stink about WMDs.

And like I said. You seem to think drama is what makes battles decisive. Aside from the fact that there's no purpose of value to such a definition, the US armed forces define decisiveness as the rapid achievement of an action's interdependant operational objectives over distance.

Even accepting your definition (which I am forced to as I have no better one at hand), Germnay squashing France was still mroe decisive.

Yes, essentially you are.

Essentially? Calling your bullshit is lying?

More ad hominem. Keep it up, your frustration is telling.

No fucking kidding, you respond to rebuttals with vague suggestions of lies and no substance.

So you admit that your arguments satisfy no evidentiary standard. You're debating in a vacuum.

Bullshit, me using your numbers should make this debate easier on you.

"Middle Eastern transformation" means spreading democracy through the region. If you don't like it, tough.

Means to you, not an English dictionary reader.

I don't know, either. If you want to avoid getting thrashed so badly you should at least skim some of the material before making an ass of yourself.

I respond to your 'refutations' point by point, and you claim I'm not reading them? what do you think I've been doing for the last two days?

[Iceberg]

I like the texture of horse cum flowing right out of it's cock.

Rev Prez

Wow, who knew RevPrez was this depraved

Aw, c'mon, Shep. Urine jokes as regards any type of beer developed in these here United States (except for California common, AKA steam(tm) beer) are both more topical and - in context - more disgusting.

[revprez]

Then you've hijacked the topic, retard- what you claim to be debating about and what the thread is about are completely different.

No. A discussion of decisiveness is definitely topical.

This from someone who continually offers to make a new topic to avoid getting off-track. Hypocrite.

Are you suggesting a discussion of NMD has something to do with the OP and one on the decisivess of battles does not?

You dodged Shep, and then hinted you'd liek to continue in another topic.

Dodged Shep on what? What are you talking about? NMD? He didn't offer to discuss NMD, I did.

At what point in this debate have I answered a major point with a personal attack and not a rebuttal?

Right here.

[quote="The Whining Loser]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.[/quote]

You lose, and attempt to decry the others' debating skills- that makes you less impressive, not more.

See above.

So all those battles for the ports and Um Qasar were ficticious?

How is the supporting action at Um Qasr or Rumaila independant from the overall operational flow of Iraqi Freedom?.

As was teh Triple Entente's goal.

The Allies had three independent operational objectives.

Bullshit, if everyone had have packed up and left their trench, the enemy would have advanced into it.

The trench isn't the field. The land in between is. That neither side could advance very far across it would is another discussion entirely.

The majority of that war was spend waiting in trenches with enemies 100 metres away.

See above.

Red Herring.

Hardly. The strength of forces relative to each other is central to your argument. Now answer the question.

Germany squashed a superior enemy in less time than America did.

1) Be clear about what you mean by "superior enemy."

2) Answer the question above.

3) America advanced across a greater distance than the Germans.

Even if Germnay's invasion had been successfully completed in one hour, it's still more effective than America's.

I suggest you stay on topic.

I am on topic. I've already outlined my reasons for not taking up the historical significance half of the question. I suggest you pick a more productive line of discussion.

When America took Baghdad, the regime did not spontaneously change.

You're right. It changed as a direct result of American forces pushing into Baghdad.

If it was a major priority, it would have been accomplished before Bush and Attoney General Asshat made the stink about WMDs.

And why is that?

Even accepting your definition (which I am forced to as I have no better one at hand), Germnay squashing France was still mroe decisive.

How so?

Essentially? Calling your bullshit is lying?

You aren't. You misrepresented my original post. You continue to deny the definition of "Middle Eastern transformation." You refuse to answer my questions regarding the centrality of "relative strength" in your definition of decisiveness.

No fucking kidding, you respond to rebuttals with vague suggestions of lies and no substance.

Liar. I respond to rebuttals with cogent arguments and evidence.

Bullshit, me using your numbers should make this debate easier on you.

Stop dodging, boy. You admitted that you have no evidence to bring to this discussion to support your points. If you're relying on my evidence it is clear you've done no research for yourself.

Means to you, not an English dictionary reader.

I am an English dictionary reader, so either you're lying or incredibly stupid.

I respond to your 'refutations' point by point, and you claim I'm not reading them? what do you think I've been doing for the last two days?

I respond line by line and address the substance of every single line. I've already identified two points where you simply call bullshit and then throw up strawmen.

Rev Prez

[revprez]

The discussion with Aliens is going around in circles. I'm done with it.

Rev Prez

[The Yosemite Bear]

Don't forget never piss off the Mongols

[The Aliens]

Concession Accepted

And a very nice day to you.

[Frank Hipper]

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.

Simplistic.
You disregard the political strategy of the time of having a fleet in being as a bargaining chip. That reasoning was more influential on the Germans not conducting any more sorties than anything else.
Had a decisive engagement occured, it would have determined the outcome of the war.

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.

The U-Boot threat diminished rapidly with the instigation of convoys in 1917. The Allies did a great deal to "change the fact that cross Atlantic shipping was still vulnerable to German U Boats". They virtually negated that vulnerability.

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.

No, you merely assume Mahan is wrong due to the fact that Jutland was indecisive, and submarine commerce warfare was strangling Britain.
Neither of which prove Mahan wrong.
Submarines gave Germany a degree of control of the sea which Britain was impotent in dealing with at first. A situation Mahan did not forsee, but it hardly proves his overall concepts false. He understood that the nation with superior navy was the one that controlled commerce and trade, his entire premise is based on control of the sea.
After all, submarines lost control of the sea for Britain, reinstating convoys and advancing ASW techniques restored it.
Just because he saw fleet engagement as the means for gaining that control in no way shows that Jutland, or any other aspect of WWI naval operations, proved him wrong.

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.

In the absence of any climactic, decisive fleet engagements, your point is moot.
Mahan stressed control, and his historical examples all achieved control through fleet action. You can only blame him for not having the forsight to see the impact of the submarine.
Furthermore, none of his examples relied on imports to the extent that Britain of the early 20th century did. Another failing of Mahan's forsight, but definetly not one for his overall ideas.

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?

Don't know why I should do your research for you, but the enormous influx of American shipping, the vast number of escort vessels available for the newly organised convoys, and manpower, all resulted in a dramtic decrease in sinkings.

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.

Worthless strawman.
British superiority in a fleet vs fleet scenario proves the theories that led to both fleet's creation correct.
The Kaiser's refusal to risk his fleet is another matter entirely, and not entirely dependant on British numerical superiority.

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.

It does?
Care to try making me a believer?

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?

Yes, it would have.
It would not have occurred as rapidly, but faced with the industrial output of the U.S., the American self reliance on war materials, it was a fait accompli with the first bomb that fell on Pearl Harbor.

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.

Mahan was a romantic, short sighted, didn't understand the limitaions of 17th century navies, and was writing in the latter 19th century before technological innovations changed naval combat beyond his imaginings.
But whatever faults there are with his tactical concepts, his overall strategic theories stand.