And there was much rejoicing

Palooka posts, for the last time:

Notice how Vox is emphasizing a point I made about the nature of World War II warefare to obscure his own weak argument.

This point, typically inaccurate and tangential, weirdly insisted that World War II was bound to be short because of “mobile blitzkrieg-type warfare”. When I noted that it would be rather difficult to mount a blitzkrieg on the ocean, he then stated that submarines and aircraft carriers were the equivalent of blitzkrieg. This not only reveals a complete ignorance of what blitzkrieg was – driving tank columns deep behind enemy lines and encircling the hapless enemy to create a pocket and force surrender – but is possibly the strangest statement with regards to military history and theory I have ever heard. Aircraft carriers are used for hit-and-run raids, anti-submarine warfare and mobile air support. Submarines are used for raiding and blockade/siege purposes. None of this has anything to do with “blitzkrieg” or WWII ending quickly, a point Palooka was making to escape the ominous implications of his argument for the current War on Terror.

He has dismissed espionage and sabotage as irrelevant. Let them spy, let them destroy our industrial capacity! We kick ass!

I did not say they were completely irrelevant. I mathematically proved that no amount of espionage or sabotage that could have conceivably been performed by the 112,000 Japanese-Americans interned could have reduced our production to the point that it would have slowed the war effort, much less crippled it as Malkin suggests. Nor did I state that we should leave our production facilities unguarded. Malkin’s book claims that the internment was militarily necessary due to the potential sabotage, and I was responding specifically to that erroneous claim.

He has presented a false dichotomy. He presents an argument which justfies internment only if internment, taken in isolation, swings the balance of the war. No single decision can do that. Victory is a cumulation of decisions which collectively result in victory. Vox has framed the debate dishonestly, and he has done nothing–absolutely nothing–to respond to this criticism.

Again, Palooka demonstrates that he has serious reading comprehension problems My argument does not justify internment in any way, and I have not presented any false dichotomy but have instead responded, directly and specifically, to the issues that Michelle Malkin raised in her book. It is Malkin that framed the debate, not me. Finally, I had already warned Palooka once; as he has now seen fit to falsely accuse me of dishonesty, he can find somewhere else to post and is henceforth banned.