StarDestroyer.Net BBS

For anyone interested in a discussion on prospects for successful Middle East transformation, here you go.

Rev Prez

A few things.

Maybe the title of this topic should be changed to "...of All Time" instead of "...in Our Time," since 'our time' really hasn't been very long.

Second, is anybody else sick of the VI who redefines every damn word everybody says to fit his warped view of life, morality, and existance?

Third, it could be argued that the most important battle of all time may have been forgotten. This battle may have been between two species a hundred thousand years ago on the African savannah, with one side winning and surviving (our ancestors), and the other side dying and going extinct. One of the debates in paleontology right now is the number of former species in the genus Homo. Some scientists say that there were several species (including Neandertals) up to a few tens of thousands of years ago, when all of them except Homo sapiens went extinct. Assuming that there were several other species in the genus Homo besides Homo sapiens, if they had won then we would never be talking about the battles of Greece or anywhere else, because none of it would have ever happened.

Just a useless comment for the day, since I can't think of a good recorded battle.

Mayabird wrote:Second, is anybody else sick of the VI who redefines every damn word everybody says to fit his warped view of life, morality, and existance?

Oh well, you can't win'em all.

Rev Prez

It's not really a specific battle, but Napoleon's decision to invade Russia was pretty important. If he hadn't done that, he might have been able to build a lasting French Empire. Waterloo may have been his final defeat, but his return to power had no chance of working out anyway, so he would have been beaten eventually anyway.

I don't know any specific battles from the Franco-Prussian War, but the outcomes of that war (German unification and possession of Alsace-Lorraine) had enormous impacts that eventually led to both World Wars and all the things that followed from those.

It's not really a specific battle, but Napoleon's decision to invade Russia was pretty important. If he hadn't done that, he might have been able to build a lasting French Empire. Waterloo may have been his final defeat, but his return to power had no chance of working out anyway, so he would have been beaten eventually anyway.

I don't know any specific battles from the Franco-Prussian War, but the outcomes of that war (German unification and possession of Alsace-Lorraine) had enormous impacts that eventually led to both World Wars and all the things that followed from those.

revprez wrote:

Howedar wrote: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

Well if you'd fucking told us that that first time...

Howedar wrote:Well if you'd fucking told us that that first time...

Well you seemed like a pretty informed fellow. I thought you knew.

Rev Prez

Andrew J. wrote:I don't know any specific battles from the Franco-Prussian War, but the outcomes of that war (German unification and possession of Alsace-Lorraine) had enormous impacts that eventually led to both World Wars and all the things that followed from those.

Dispute over the territory in and of itself wasn't a primary cause of World War I, but the cult of the offensive that swept Europe and compelled France and Germany to perceive Alsace-Lorraine as strategically valuable.

Rev Prez

Kursk. Though it was basically pointless it conatined the largest amount of tanks in a single engagememt. It also showed the fall of Germany on the crucial front mostly due to itler. Had he attacked salient before the majorty of Soviet Offensive Reserves had arrived he might have had a better chance at success. Only to be pushed back when the Guard and Shock forces arrived. Though I find von Manstein's taking of Sebvastopol, his winter of 1943 defensive actions, and Guderian's drive of II. Panzergruppe and later II. Panzer Armee.

revprez wrote:

Andrew J. wrote:I don't know any specific battles from the Franco-Prussian War, but the outcomes of that war (German unification and possession of Alsace-Lorraine) had enormous impacts that eventually led to both World Wars and all the things that followed from those.

Dispute over the territory in and of itself wasn't a primary cause of World War I, but the cult of the offensive that swept Europe and compelled France and Germany to perceive Alsace-Lorraine as strategically valuable.

Rev Prez

Somewhat in truth. It is not a reason for most of the power's entries into the war. Germany thought it could make it, the rest of the continent followed allies into fight; things were mostly forced from most views anyway.

And now for something really obscure!

The Battle of the Douro, 1808.
(Napolean`s forces stopped winning battles againts Britain from this point on)

Battle of the Somme
(proved the uselessness of 19th century tactics in the face of 20th century weapons)

Battle of Yorktown
(Secured America`s independence)

revprez wrote:Back on up there.

1) I specifically said "well, I can't argue that it is the most historically significant battle in history."

Oh really?

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

You're not too good at this are you?

2) "Transform the Middle East" is one of the most common phrases used to refer to the ambition and effort to democratize of the region. Don't blow up on me because you're God knows how many centuries out of the loop.

Geez, next time you should be a little more specific. While you may wish to suck on Dubya's cock, and that is a personal life style choice for you, I do not. Since when did the word 'Transform' become synonymous with bringing democracy to the ME? More to the point, the next time America has a foreign policy change and it's next direction of 'transformation' goes to another tangent, do we all update our dictionaries again?

Regardless, this isn't the first 'campaign to transform the ME', as you first speculated, and Alexander beat Dubya by a good 2000 years spreading Hellenisism and western culture to the ME.

I'm not moving the goal posts. If anything, you've decided to reinterpret my argument in order to hurl a few insults. So spare me the righteous indignation and argue something.

You did, you were called on it, and this is how you respond? Wow, I am blown away by your debating skills.

1) See above remarks about "transforming the Middle East.'

Which has been refuted.

2) I was perfectly clear that this was the first campaign to do so, which obviously implies that the task is not yet completed.

Rubbish, Alexander, Rome, and Britain preceeded Dubya, and by your own admission the task isn't even yet completed, and yet you continue to argue it as a fait-accompli you dishonest little turd.

3) Pahlevi was not "installed," he assumed the throne in 1941 after his father abdicated. There was nothing much in the way of democracy either; the Shah remained chief of state and exercised immense power over the Majlis even during Mossadeq's tenure--a point he drived home in 1952 by firing the man and investing the next decade consolidating more power for himself.

Rubbish, in August 19th, 1953, democratically elected Mossadeq was overthrown, and the Shah took control with the help of Western interference, which included the British SIS, and the CIA using this little gem, to remove the then Prime Minister Mossadeq who was (I once again repeat) DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED by the people of Iran. Shove that up your ass and smoke it, dickhead.

Hahaha. Bullshit.

Hahaha, rebuttle? Yes Saddam was an opressive dictator, but was he an Islamofascist? You made the claim dipshit, the burden of proof falls on you.

It was a single, continuous engagement of opposing forces with a set of concurrent operational objectives, exactly what the US Army calls a battle. That the battle was decisive is obvious; one American ADE crushed four divisions of Iraqi Republican Guards in the final stage of the engagement after a two week, 350 mile advance to the objective across hostile terrain.

The 'War' was hardly been decisive in the broader geo-political terms, the battles in the war were hardly decisive, when the outcome of the entire engagement was a forgone conclusion.

By comparison, Marathon was decisive, since it marked the first point in time when Greek Hoplites utterly destroyed a Persian army, that set a trend that was to be repeated over and over.

Israel's victories over its enemies were decisive since they established that western weapons and training (in the mordern day), could out perform their Arab counterparts.

In terms of human cost, no. But what does that have to do with decisiveness?

YOU HAVE YET TO SHOW WHY THE OIF WAS 'DECISIVE' in any way shape or form. Saying so, doesn't make it so you retard.

What are you talking about?

I am talking about the fact that most of your '350 miles' was wide open desert with no oposition along the way. All the 350 miles advance shows is how fast a tank could move, hardly a talking point.

The 100 mile advance made no contact with the enemy. What you call "minimal resistance" in Iraqi Freedom was constant contact. Just because American blockers were good enough to send most of them running away doesn't make the result any less decisive--in fact, it is an entirely impressive display of the psychological power American overmatch provides.

The key word here is overmatch, I suppose a fight between Kostya Tszyu and Stephen Hawkins (sorry for the poor pun) would also be 'decisive'. Quit with the constant bait and switch. Justify in no unsertain terms (i.e. plain English, not Dubya speak), why you believe OIF to be decisive.

Oh no you don't. You spent the first half of this post making utterly baseless allegations about goal posts being moved. You said

Crown wrote:Was OIF impressive sure, was it so far beyond the relm of possibility as to go down as a historically significant battle or decisive? No.

Now answer the question.

I did already. I said that OIF went to about as well as could be expected, the 'victory' part of the first quote, would refer to the greater aims of the 'War on Terror' something which would have been evident in the entire post. Nice red herring though, you are getting good at this.

Well that depends on the success of the campaign in Iraq, but Operation Iraqi Freedom still represents a decisive advance down the list of US strategic objectives in the War on Terror. We have elimated a regime that was known to support terrorists, suspected of cooperating with al Qai'da, widely believed to have WMDs and programs to develop more, and most importantly was denying its population freedom.

Bullshit. The evidence that Iraq had WMD? None. The evidence that Iraq was in partnership with terrorist groups prior to the war? None. The evidence that Iraq could and would supply WMD to terrorists (a primary trigger in Dubya's propaganda)? None. The evidence that this has hurt any terrorist cause?

Why would I? It's true.

And yet you have failed to show how the two objectives inter-twine.

revprez wrote:

Crown wrote:Just a question; you wouldn't happen to be the old Iraqi information minister would you?

That's funny coming from someone trying so hard to deny the obvious. Go watch some TV news--you should catch that "transforming the Middle East" line in an hour if you worry.

Rev Prez

revprez wrote:Turning over a new leaf here...

And that, is all the irony that I need.

Crown wrote:Oh really?

Yes really. You can read, can't you? Do you need help?

revprez wrote:You're not too good at this are you?

What, reading? Yes, I'm very good at it. And I can help you, too.

Geez, next time you should be a little more specific.

How about I just continue as I am, and you catch up? Yeah, I like that idea better.

While you may wish to suck on Dubya's cock and that is a personal life style choice for you, I do not.

Oh come on now, I think I've made it quite clear that I find the homosexual lifestyle immoral and disgusting.

Since when did the word 'Transform' become synonymous with bringing democracy to the ME?

Last year.

More to the point, the next time America has a foreign policy change and it's next direction of 'transformation' goes to another tangent, do we all update our dictionaries again?

That's right. When the Aussies are the world's remaining superpower, you guys can call the shots.

Regardless, this isn't the first 'campaign to transform the ME', as you first speculated...

Wait. Hold on. Yeah. "You fucking liar!" I clearly was referring to democratization.

...and Alexander beat Dubya by a good 2000 years spreading Hellenisism and western culture to the ME.

What a lovely digression.

You did, you were called on it, and this is how you respond?

You lied, I called you on it, and now your sulking.

Wow, I am blown away by your debating skills.

Keep it up playa, it only gets better.

Which has been refuted.

No it hasn't, you liar. You just hurled some more insults. Come on, don't you know how to do anything other than fuck dingos and whine?

Rubbish, Alexander, Rome, and Britain preceeded Dubya, and by your own admission the task isn't even yet completed, and yet you continue to argue it as a fait-accompli you dishonest little turd.

Keep fishing lil'fibber.

Rev Prez

revprez wrote:That was the idea. The lesson was...well....Jutland didn't have a whole lot of lessons other than that Mahan was full of shit.

Mahan may have been full of shit in many of his ideas, but Jutland proves nothing in that regard.
If anything, Jutland and it's analogy with the first and second Anglo-Dutch wars proved Mahan right more than anything else.
Control of the sea locally=British supremacy.

For the purposes of the OP, Jutland should only rank as being great for the numbers involved, it only showed that Germany had better command and control abilities over it's fleet, and that the British had some questionable powder handling.

Tsushima was the most decisive naval batle of modern times.

Crown wrote:

revprez wrote:3) Pahlevi was not "installed," he assumed the throne in 1941 after his father abdicated. There was nothing much in the way of democracy either; the Shah remained chief of state and exercised immense power over the Majlis even during Mossadeq's tenure--a point he drived home in 1952 by firing the man and investing the next decade consolidating more power for himself.

Rubbish...

Jesus you're remarkably stupid. You just reasserted your claim that the Shah was "installed."

...in August 19th, 1953, democratically elected Mossadeq was overthrown, and the Shah took control with the help of Western interference, which included the British SIS, and the CIA using this little gem, to remove the then Prime Minister Mossadeq who was (I once again repeat) DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED by the people of Iran. Shove that up your ass and smoke it, dickhead.

One, the prime minister of Iran isn't democratically elected. He is selected by the Majlis and approved by the Shah. The Shah has the right and power to fire him, and Operation Ajax sought to convince him to do exactly that. Now what kind of functioning democracy has a monarch that can dismiss elected officials? None. So quit wasting my time and move on.

Hahaha, rebuttle? Yes Saddam was an opressive dictator, but was he an Islamofascist? You made the claim dipshit, the burden of proof falls on you.

He's an Islamofascist. What more is there to say? He's a democrat? Jesus, man. Keep up with me.

The 'War' was hardly been decisive in the broader geo-political terms, the battles in the war were hardly decisive, when the outcome of the entire engagement was a forgone conclusion.

Oh so now decisive means that a battle must have some sort of impact geopolitically? Who's moving goal posts?

By comparison, Marathon was decisive, since it marked the first point in time when Greek Hoplites utterly destroyed a Persian army, that set a trend that was to be repeated over and over.

Oh, decisive means the "beginning of a trend" now?

Israel's victories over its enemies were decisive since they established that western weapons and training (in the mordern day), could out perform their Arab counterparts.

Oh, so now decisive means "significant lessons about different systems and doctrine?"

YOU HAVE YET TO SHOW WHY THE OIF WAS 'DECISIVE' in any way shape or form.

It advanced a strategic aim faster and over a greater distance than any battle that preceded it. That is decisiveness.

Saying so, doesn't make it so you retard.

...the rabid Aussie says as he pulls definitions for "decisive" out of his thin.

I am talking about the fact that most of your '350 miles' was wide open desert with no oposition along the way. All the 350 miles advance shows is how fast a tank could move, hardly a talking point.

Bullshit. The line encountered hostiles ever single day for four days (300 miles), an average of four a day based only on reported encounters. Furthermore, now your suggesting that bloodiness has something to do with decisiveness. Where the hell did you pick up these ideas?

The key word here is overmatch, I suppose a fight between Kostya Tszyu and Stephen Hawkins (sorry for the poor pun) would also be 'decisive'.

Yes, it would. Perhaps you're confusing 'decisive' with 'entertaining.' If you are, you're a sick bastard.

Quit with the constant bait and switch.

I haven't switched shit. You on the other hand have defined decisiveness four different ways in the course of one post. Why not stick with the definition most commonly used?

Justify in no unsertain terms (i.e. plain English, not Dubya speak), why you believe OIF to be decisive.

Operation Iraqi Freedom saw US forces achieve their primary strategic aim, the toppling of the regime, within an unprecedented four weeks of the start of the operations, with incredibly low cost in life and material and through 350 miles of hostile territory. No other battle in history matches it along these three dimension.

I did already.

Liar, you're not answering it now.

I said that OIF went to about as well as could be expected, the 'victory' part of the first quote, would refer to the greater aims of the 'War on Terror' something which would have been evident in the entire post. Nice red herring though, you are getting good at this.

And you're dodging the question. I'll ask it again.

"Wait, since when did uncertainty of victory become a prerequisite for decisiveness? I've already conceded the historical significance of the battle."

You've already gone through five definitions of decisiveness. You want to try for six?

Bullshit. The evidence that Iraq had WMD? None.

On the contrary. There's plenty of evidence that Iraq had WMD. You might not agree that the evidence is fullproof or would stand up in court, but it's evidence that was believed sufficiently credible for the UN to pass 1441.

The evidence that Iraq was in partnership with terrorist groups prior to the war? None.

Iraq maintained several contacts with terrorists, a terrorist training camp in Salman Pak, and a relationship with Palestinian terrorist groups. You might bury your head in the sand and dismiss it, but that's still evidence.

The evidence that Iraq could and would supply WMD to terrorists (a primary trigger in Dubya's propaganda)? None.

Are you going to bet your life that he won't? I know I wouldn't. Neither did the President.

The evidence that this has hurt any terrorist cause?

Al Qai'da obviously feels pressured to come to Iraq's aid.

And yet you have failed to show how the two objectives inter-twine.

Iraq is a state sponsor of terror with suspected ties to Al Qai'da and WMD stockpiles. The most effective course of action to take against terrorists is to cut them off from their state sponsors. If the Administration believes al Qai'da has ties to Iraq and may acquire Iraqi WMD at some point, then the Administration is justified in acting to prevent such a transfer. Get it?

revprez wrote:And that, is all the irony that I need.

But I ain't madatchya.

Rev Prez

Frank Hipper wrote:Tsushima was the most decisive naval batle of modern times.

Agreed, followed by Salamis as the most decisive defensive naval stand in history.

Rev Prez

Hitler deciding to attack Russia was probably one of the most significant military decisions in the 20th century. I'm not going to make claims about before 1900, because I know very little about specific battles from that period. If Hitler hadn't have changed tactics to attack Russia though, he could have worn down Britain and focused his sole attention on the Eastern front

The Union was going to strike westward in a few years anyway. Had not Hitler struck when he did, he would have faced the Red Army on German-occupied soil on an offensive roll. Not much he could have done either way.

Operation Iraqi Freedom saw US forces achieve their primary strategic aim, the toppling of the regime, within an unprecedented four weeks of the start of the operations, with incredibly low cost in life and material and through 350 miles of hostile territory. No other battle in history matches it along these three dimension.

Except for the first persian gulf war, the kosovo campaign, operation enduring freedom.

OIF did not achieve anything except toppling a tinpot dictator and antagonising the rest of the world against America.

On the contrary. There's plenty of evidence that Iraq had WMD. You might not agree that the evidence is fullproof or would stand up in court, but it's evidence that was believed sufficiently credible for the UN to pass 1441.

Iraq had primitive chemical weapons in the past. But they had been destroyed or decayed after after the first gulf war.

revprez wrote: I'm not trying to make it out to be some great naval debacle. I'm just saying that all Jutland disproved Mahan's argument that the primary strategic objective in naval warfare is the destruction of the enemy's battle fleet. By the time naval OAs grasped that lesson, battleships had already been relegated to the decidedly unsexy role of providing fire support for amphibious forces. It took another fifty years before the US stopped wasting money on large battleship and nuclear cruiser surface action groups.

Have you ever even read Mahan?

Jutland did not "disprove" Mahanian power projection theory. I don't see any proof on your part. (burden of proof lies on the assertion, not the debunking).

Did it occur to you that when the US stopped building battleships, it built aircraft carriers instead? Carriers, the modern method of naval power projection in the Mahanian sense.

revprez wrote:

Frank Hipper wrote:Tsushima was the most decisive naval batle of modern times.

Agreed, followed by Salamis as the most decisive defensive naval stand in history.

Rev Prez

You fucking fruit loop, Salamis is the most decisive naval battle period. A Greek defeat at Salamis ends with Greece rendered a Persian satrapy and Western civilization strangled in it's own crib!

That does not, in any way, compare to Tsushima, which mostly decided the fate of Russia and Japan, and at most, continued to fuel the Japanese imperial aspirations that would lead it to getting crunched by America 40 years later. Hell, Lepanto is probably a more decisive naval battle than Tsushima. Actium definitely is.

Anyone else think that revprez has outlived his welcome?

I've thought that for some time. However, he's apparently still on Mike's Christmas card list, so that is how things stand. The mods already voted in favor of a ban.

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

Steve wrote:Have you ever even read Mahan?

I had to. Have you?

Jutland did not "disprove" Mahanian power projection theory.

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

I don't see any proof on your part. (burden of proof lies on the assertion, not the debunking).

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

Did it occur to you that when the US stopped building battleships, it built aircraft carriers instead? Carriers, the modern method of naval power projection in the Mahanian sense.

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

Rev Prez

revprez wrote: *snip*

Please define and operationalize "democracy" and "islamofascist"