US Government Shutdown

[Monk Of Reason]

Interesting.....I say Reagan might be the only recent prez who understood economics.
(I think of Johnson, Nixon, Carter, Bush, Bush & Obama as stand-out dullards.)

Which is why Reganomics played a key role in the income disparity in America right now.

I wonder about your basis for saying this. Why do you believe it?
I submit a different theory:
- The US was playing chess, where you start with a small number of
men which you try to avoid losing.
- The Chinese were playing wei chi (go), where you start with no men,
but you add them without limit. Chess is only a battle, but go is a war.
Winning requires sacrificing not just single pieces, but even large groups.

How is that fundamentally different than what I've been saying? The reason I believe this is because when taking the class on US history the teacher used almost this exact phrasing.

Hah! Tell that to Korean War veterans.
(Sorry...I felt the need for a cheap shot.)

Didn't make it any less deadly or important. Simply that it was not an offical "war". Just what it is.

We know it's "true"?
I don't buy into the oil conspiracy either....it's a lack of evidence thingie.

Lot of people don't. I don't feel like getting into it further right now. Perhaps another day in another thread.

Can we put this in the Democrats say the darnedest things thread?

I'd rather not since it would be inaccurate I'm not a Democrat and I've made the point to make that clear on several occasions.

 

[Revoltingest]

Which is why Reganomics played a key role in the income disparity in America right now.

I see more whys for the problem than this.

How is that fundamentally different than what I've been saying?

You spoke of how the Chinese didn't value the lives of their soldiers.
This is not the same as willingness to use soldiers, knowing that there will be high casualties.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

I see more whys for the problem than this.

I don't think there would be any fruit to be had if we got into this debate would there?

You spoke of how the Chinese didn't value the lives of their soldiers.
This is not the same as willingness to use soldiers, knowing that there will be high casualties.

Value of individuals lives are not of the primary concern of the Chinese. They are willing to sacrifice soldiers where in the US it is usually a taboo to do so. They don't make sacrifice plays. The Chinese are.

 

[Revoltingest]

I don't think there would be any fruit to be had if we got into this debate would there?

I've covered much of it already in other threads.
No need to rehash.

Value of individuals lives are not of the primary concern of the Chinese. They are willing to sacrifice soldiers where in the US it is usually a taboo to do so. They don't make sacrifice plays. The Chinese are.

It's an interesting speculation which could be true.
But it could also be that the Chinese were willing to do whatever it took to win.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

It's an interesting speculation which could be true.
But it could also be that the Chinese were willing to do whatever it took to win.

Which still boils down to the value they have on the lives of their soliders. At least thats they way I see it.

 

[esmith]

Which still boils down to the value they have on the lives of their soliders. At least thats they way I see it.

As I mentioned in another thread I disagree with you. Up until the first part of 1951 the Chinese were basically winning. They decimated the UN forces above the 38th parallel and pushed the UN forces back beyond Seoul and recaptured it. As a matter of fact contingency plans were drawn up to have the Navy evacuate all UN forces from Korea. The defeatist attitude was at the highest ebb in the US and Japan. The Chinese government felt that the UN forces were weak and ready to give up. This is were the Chinese made their mistake. General Ridgway was put in command of all UN forces in Korea and he believed he could stop the Chinese. He was going back to the 38th, then formulated a plan to fortify his lines and make the war too costly for the Chinese to continue. Remember, they had no artillery and what we call close air support. Yes they, the Chinese, had the best fighters in Korea until the F84E and F86 Saberjets were introduced which were more than a match for the MIG's. The Chinese spring offensive of 1951 is when they started losing the war and sustaining massive casualties as General Ridgway planed.
However, I agree that the Chinese, at that time, did not place the same value on people that Westerner's do and especially the US. The average US soldier, or marine will do almost anything not to leave anyone behind. However, it seems now that has changed among our political and military leaders....Benghazi comes to mind.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

As I mentioned in another thread I disagree with you. Up until the first part of 1951 the Chinese were basically winning. They decimated the UN forces above the 38th parallel and pushed the UN forces back beyond Seoul and recaptured it. As a matter of fact contingency plans were drawn up to have the Navy evacuate all UN forces from Korea. The defeatist attitude was at the highest ebb in the US and Japan. The Chinese government felt that the UN forces were weak and ready to give up. This is were the Chinese made their mistake. General Ridgway was put in command of all UN forces in Korea and he believed he could stop the Chinese. He was going back to the 38th, then formulated a plan to fortify his lines and make the war too costly for the Chinese to continue. Remember, they had no artillery and what we call close air support. Yes they, the Chinese, had the best fighters in Korea until the F84E and F86 Saberjets were introduced which were more than a match for the MIG's. The Chinese spring offensive of 1951 is when they started losing the war and sustaining massive casualties as General Ridgway planed.
However, I agree that the Chinese, at that time, did not place the same value on people that Westerner's do and especially the US. The average US soldier, or marine will do almost anything not to leave anyone behind. However, it seems now that has changed among our political and military leaders....Benghazi comes to mind.

I don't see specifically where you disagree aside from splitting hairs. Though Benghazi was a singular incident involving an embassy not a military line. And they were killed by a terrorist strike rather than being sent into the front line and sacrificed in order to make a military play. So I don't quite see the similarities that you are trying to stretch.

 

[Revoltingest]

Which still boils down to the value they have on the lives of their soliders. At least thats they way I see it.

Or the value they place on winning.
Could we could go on like this all nite?

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Or the value they place on winning.
Could we could go on like this all nite?

I suppose. If you really disagree then by all means but if its just to quarrel then I"d rather not.

 

[Revoltingest]

I suppose. If you really disagree then by all means but if its just to quarrel then I"d rather not.

No quarreling. I just oppose the notion that the Chinese don't care about people as much as the West does.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

No quarreling. I just oppose the notion that the Chinese don't care about people as much as the West does.

I didn't say people. I said their soldiers. To them victory was more important. To the west at the time it was not.

 

[Revoltingest]

I didn't say people. I said their soldiers. To them victory was more important. To the west at the time it was not.

I think we each understand the other's perspective,
so I won't give you any more grief over it.

 

[1robin]

I didn't say people. I said their soldiers. To them victory was more important. To the west at the time it was not.

Any nation that launches massive waves of people into fixed machine gun positions in numbers that only prevailed with the running out of bullets has something dreadfully wrong with it's philosophy. In general the east has tended in that direction for many reasons which I will not bother with. When I think of any modern battles involving Russia, China, Japan, or the like I picture massed waves charging superior positions over and over an choosing death over surrender. I do not know how to derive an exact reason for this (they vary quite a bit) but there certainly exists a lower valuation of life in general in the East, at least individually.