< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 4 OF 4 ·
|Nov-26-10|| ||asianwarrior: China won the gold as expected but the Philippines ended a surprise second and defeated poserhouse India twice. That is quite an accomplishment. Congratulation to all of them!!!!|
|Nov-26-10|| ||visayanbraindoctor: <Philippines ended a surprise second and defeated powerhouse India twice.>|
Yes that result should be counted as a success. Silver is an achievement, not a disappointment.
<HeMateMe> thanks for filling in the blanks. Your account is correct except that you mistook the PLA as the North Korean army in my previous post; it's actually the Chinese People's Liberation Army. It was the Chinese PLA that pushed back the US army from North Korea, not the North Koreans themselves whom the US army defeated.
Notwithstanding the fact of the numerous Chinese casualties and the fact that McArthur was not given command of nuclear weapons, this seems to be the first time in history that the US army was forced to retreat and so lost their military objective, which was to secure North Korea; and not the Vietnam war which came later. I cannot find any incident before the Korean war wherein the US army was forced to retreat from their military objective by an opposing military; if the US army itself was not ordered out of the field. If you know of a previous incident like this, I would also like to know about it.
|Nov-26-10|| ||radicalcation: <I cannot find any incident before the Korean war wherein the US army was forced to retreat from their military objective by an opposing military>|
During WWII, in the Battle of Kasserine Pass, inexperienced American troops were defeated by field marshal Erwin Rommel's Panzer Army.
During the War of 1812, the British burned Washington D.C. in 1814.
|Nov-26-10|| ||visayanbraindoctor: My fault for not being clear. What I mean is a war. Surely there have been many battles within a war in which the American army lost. In both the Korean and Vietnam wars, there must have been dozens of specific battles wherein the US army or components of it won, and also dozens where they lost. In these two wars as a whole, the US army was driven off North Korea and South Vietnam respectively by an opposing military, contrary to the US military objective of securing these places. I would like to find out if there was a previous war where the same thing has happened.|
|Nov-26-10|| ||BobCrisp: <During WWII, in the Battle of Kasserine Pass, inexperienced American troops were defeated by field marshal Erwin Rommel's Panzer Army.>|
Was it due to lack of experience or lack of overwhelming superiority in manpower and weaponry? The first rule of the American military: never enter a fair fight.
|Nov-26-10|| ||BobCrisp: <In these two wars as a whole, the US army was driven off North Korea and South Vietnam respectively by an opposing military, contrary to the US military objective of securing these places.>|
The Americans weren't driven out of Vietnam. Militarily, they were winning, but they got bored, distracted, disillusioned, whatever,and so they took their toys and went home. It was only then that the South Vietnamese collapsed.
|Nov-26-10|| ||ashalpha: Interesting that this board suddenly became a military history thread :-)...I am a military history buff so I read a lot of military history even obscure articles and books that no one really knows about. The truth is that in a pure military conflict both the Korean and Vietnamese Wars were winnable, the problem was political. Though you can say you can't separate the two, the truth is that when you hamstring your military that much there is no victory just prolonged advantage.|
There were long periods of time when carriers off the coast of Vietnam with large groups of fighters and bombers could decimate entire armies/supplies of NVA but were never given the green light because the South Vietnamese refused them clearance to "their" airspace. The military force the US sent to Vietnam was always limited by numbers not by attrition but by the South Vietnamese government and then later by the peace movement in the States. Throughout all this the US military was actually pushing the NVA back until finally given the order to come home when all hell broke loose.
Korea was in a sense a moral victory since the invader was pushed back that was the "military objective" set forth by the United Nations, only the intervention of the Chinese Army whom the US was not expecting to enter the war saved North Korea. Though you could also say it was Mcarthur's arrogance. He was the one who was quoted as saying he would drive the "Commie Bastards straight to Beijing". If I was Chinese I would have responded also...
|Nov-26-10|| ||Ladolcevita: Congratulations to both teams!
My country has certainly exhibits its overwhelming power over chess board and Philippines also did a great job of course.Presumably few here would have expected their beating Indian twice and won the silver medal at last!
BTW,though being Chinese doesnt mean I'm obliged to answer any China-related questions I come upon and also I think its quite boring to clarify such myths,because we should know every person on earth bears mutual resemblance and one can simply look at the mirror to find our what others might be like...but still I would like to advise people to think with some common sense,that is,Chinese people has a longstanding tradition of seeking peace and harmony.For instance,you can listen to any ancient Chinese music or read any ancient Chinese poems...mainly you can find inside is peace and harmony.Dating back that age,most art and social customs of degradation and brutalization have been chiefly refuted and abandoned by ancient Chinese....their lacking scientific knowledge did make them superstitious to some extent,but the peaceful tradition has been established gradually...
Whilst if you investigate into western culture,you surely find a lot of wartoned stuff and looking at the modern history also help clarify the fact that both world wars are initiated by the western nations and whether the communism or nazy or religious wars arose in the western world....
If only the western countries had never invaded China,would China go along this road?As bertrand russell said,there would never been a country strong enough to defend itself under the invasion of both western world and Japan,however great traditions it has established.
I strongly suggest that you guys examin your own countries' affairs first,before making enquiries about China.
China has contributed to the world a great deal,and I think the big difference between an ordinary Chinese and a Western person may perhaps lie in a simple fact that the latter always need a law to guard himself,a religion to unite together,an investigation to know about strangers,whilst the former never think about hurting other nations since they know what shame means and unite naturally for the sake of sharing the same ancestors.....
Bertrand Russell,when travelling in China,was surprised by how a great deal of freedom and demoracy prevailing under that fairly power-centred regime at that time;Somerset Maugham,when in China,was astounded to see a statesman talking to a coolie just like close friends...thats the Chinese way.No matter how much one Chinese changes in social status,deep down he is still an equal spirit to others.There is nearly no traditions of aristocracy in China~~
But of course Chinese are not ideal.They are perhaps relatively dumb and not so valiant as the westerners~~Anyway flawed like any other nation.
There are a great deal of social problems in modern China too such as corruption,unjustice,malapportioned capital....Many would say China has been westernized a lot as the peacelike,graceful old-fashioned Chinese style faded...so a lot of social problems are actually western-oriented...
At last,I would point out that crimes prevail at any corner of the world.We cant expect any human beings perfectly innocent or ideal,so I guess its still true that you could look at the mirror or look around to find out what others,and those beyond the horizon might be.
|Nov-26-10|| ||HeMateMe: < radicalcation > I think you're confusing "losing a battle" with losing a long series of engagements, or an entire war. |
The defeat of the Americans at Kasserine pass was due to their overall inexperience. These troops were far less experienced, and perhaps not as well led, as the German army in North Africa.
I don't agree with the comment above about North Korea, that implies we were defeated by the Chinese army. As I said earlier, the USA never brought its full military power to bear, which would have included a lot more troops, and our modern airforce, a devastating weapon. As it was, the ground troops in present day North Korea had to make a fighting retreat and go south. Along the way they inflicted huge casualties on the Chinese troops, much more casualties than the american army sustained. My point is, that if the huge army the USA had mustered during WWII had been brought to bear on the Korean peninsula there would have been no doubt of the outcome.
Your comments imply that this was a defeat accross the entire theater, but I think this was a conscious decision by the United States president to limit the conflict, by limiting our goals in this part of the world. The withdrawal from North Korea was more of a tactical and political decision than an actual defeat across a broad theater of war. As one of the marine commanders said at the time, "We aren't retreating--we're fighting in another direction."
|Nov-26-10|| ||radicalcation: <visayanbraindoctor>, <HeHateMe>|
I read <visayanbraindoctor>'s earlier post after I posted my examples. I saw he was talking about losing a "frontal war" but I chose to leave my post as it is. The point of confusion is the fact that I don't think the US lost the Korean War so I never considered they lost the "frontal war" against the North Koreans and their Chinese allies. They did lose a battle when the PLA intervened and "saved" North Korea. And losing a battle was the first thing I thought of when I read <visayanbraindoctor>'s post saying "I cannot find any incident before the Korean war wherein the US army was forced to retreat from their military objective by an opposing military". It was an interesting think, though, coming up with examples of an American Army losing their military objective. :)
<BobCrisp: Was it due to lack of experience or lack of overwhelming superiority in manpower and weaponry? The first rule of the American military: never enter a fair fight.>
Point taken. :) But writings about the battle always point out the lack of experience of the American soldiers, which surely played a role. Whether they would have been able to defeat Rommel's Army if they had been more experienced is another story.
|Nov-26-10|| ||HeMateMe: its always difficult to evaluate these things, because of the unequal numbers of men and material. When the Afrika Corp had enough men, tanks and gas they were unbeatable. The American troops improved quickly, but one can't determine who would have won, because the British navy continued to sink most of the Italian fuel shipments headed to Tunisia, crippling Rommel's tank army. In any case, he became ill and returned to Germany to recover. He left the Afrika Corp in the hands of a new General. It was this guy who Patton and Mongomery clobbered, heavily outnumbered.|
|Nov-26-10|| ||Bdellovibrio: to <Ladolcevita>:
I think you brought up many good points in your post, dispelling some myths that westerners often hold as fact regarding China. I would only like to assert that there have been strong movements towards peace throughout western history as well as Chinese, and
I don't think China's current political atmosphere was predicated entirely by Western influences. I don't discern any significant difference between western society and Chinese society with respect to the merit of military or "violent" means of diplomacy, and I think to mirror the famous western wars you can find infighting between competing Chinese kingdoms and families during periods of instability and also aggressive military campaigns by the dominant Chinese dynasties such as the Tang.
<and I think the big difference between an ordinary Chinese and a Western person may perhaps lie in a simple fact that the latter always need a law to guard himself,a religion to unite together,an investigation to know about strangers,whilst the former never think about hurting other nations since they know what shame means and unite naturally for the sake of sharing the same ancestors...>
This is a myth. There are manifold strains of western intellectual history that reject the primacy of the sovereign state or the dominance of church dogma in determining cultural unity. The philosophy of Stoicism, the writings of the American transcendentalists, or the hermetic life of Leo Tolstoy illustrate this point. Your statement seemed out of place in a post that admonishes westerners for drawing false conclusions about Chinese culture.
|Nov-26-10|| ||Bdellovibrio: <They were fighting the Chinese in China. Imagine the difficulty the US army would have experienced if they had faced the other 2/3 of the Japanese Imperial Army that was bogged down fighting the Chinese.>|
The infantry forces involved in the Chinese campaign would have made but a modest difference in an almost exclusively air- and sea-war being fought in the Pacific.
|Nov-27-10|| ||Ladolcevita: <Bdellovibrio>
Thanks for your comment.
I concede your criticizing upon my rough interpretation of western culture,and I realize my underlying attitudinal inclination towards my own country for I only provided one-sided proof. China is certainly not established on the basis of western invasion,but the modern history is so enormously influenced by western culture that hardly could I reconcile the common factual with your conclusion that there is no noticeable distinction between both societies. Chinese society had been fundemantally different from the western one and thus western world deserve well the reputation for their so-called spreading the civilization,christianity preaching ,brutal genocide,et cetera. Think about black slaves,Indians who make puritans from MayFlower thanksgivingy,and the Asian story,I think adventures on sea should have been a fantastic embarkation only,and there were indeed Chinese sailors who did thus in the early Ming Dynasty.But what he did is simply trading and barter with the India,the Middle East countries,whilst western people discovered the new land only to sweep the aboriginal,and moreover for the sake of some ridiculous religious battles and collisions.Should Columbus Day also be called the Genocidal Day of the American Continent Aboriginal?Such historical facts abounds,so I wouldnt bother citing more,and I hope it suffices to illustrate my point as well. I grant you that War is War,wherever it took place.But what you need know more about it is the fundamental difference between them.The western culture had been and is still lacking a basic respect and politeness towards the nature,the other civilized residents and their unique cultures on the earth and they should take other values into consideration so that we wouldnt make more species extinct,more resources of earth exhausted,more people becoming fanatics,I am not a puritan,so I wouldnt care whether American pop culture or modern industry is too sexual overtoned or not,but somehow I sense that this kind of globlization is mundane and one-dimensional.I'm not judging the manifold values of different nations,its just that western culture should be the chief party of the most domestic and international problems in the modern world.Judging and criticizing China randomly is simply vain and blind. At last,I would relate to the relation between western culture and western behaviour.Bible,Roman Empire,Greek Knowledge,for instance,are something we cannot omit...Endless religious wars have proved to us how can a religion control and turn fanatic subjects into depersonalization and violence... So I think fundamentally western world lacks peaceful minds,and they seems to not be good at progressing things well either. Of course I dont mean the Oriental world is much better.To be just,I would say every coin has two sides,but somehow I can discern much more friendliness in eastern culture.
|Nov-27-10|| ||Ladolcevita: ==
where is the deleting button?
I just realize this is a bit too serious a topic for me....It makes me look like a cynic just like those infamous guys in China...
Anyway,if anyone can delete it,I'll be very grateful~~
And I think chess is just chess, politics and historical affair is totally another matter~~~
|Nov-27-10|| ||Bdellovibrio: <Ladolcevita> Well, I don't mind your historical posts. I agree with some of your critiques of western culture. However, I think that you may be talking about one side of western heritage amongst many. Of course, you were not born in a western society, so I don't expect you to learn about it as fully as I have (just as I will never learn about eastern Asian culture as well as you have.) Indeed, your ability to communicate in English shows that you have come much farther than I have. |
If you ever want to delete a post, the little blue "delete" button should be somewhere under your avatar (the little picture next to <Ladolcevita>.
|Nov-27-10|| ||nummerzwei: <Ladolcevita> Your post sounds like one of those strange comparisons between chess and go :).|
|Nov-27-10|| ||visayanbraindoctor: <Ladolcevita> Congrats to your Chinese team. I was hoping we (Phil) could upset them, but it was not to be.|
I think it's only a matter of time before the Chinese will produce a World Champion, notwithstanding the fact that Western Chess is mostly unknown in your country.
Results for board games in Asiad 2010:
For Chinese chess:
For Western Chess:
I see that the Koreans are still tops in Go.
They ought to enter Japanese Chess in future Asiads.
Chess (Western) is not a traditional Asian game. The mass base of people in Asia who even know the moves is very small, and especially in North East Asia like in China. This situation is unlike that in European countries; wherein all intelligentsia and aristocracy, and probably most of the common people as well since the 1600s probably know the moves and rules. The effective mass base of Chess in Europe is essentially its whole adult population, especially in Eastern Europe. Thus it somewhat surprises that China could field a team that is a serious medal contender in the Olympiad. It must bespeak of a fine state-sponsored chess program.
|Nov-27-10|| ||Ladolcevita: <Bdellovibrio>
Well,thanks for your amendment..Anyway,as you've mentioned,I wasnt a person born in a western society~~
Thank you..Phil did great too:)I actually hope So someday wins a world champion!
Yes,Korea is quite strong at playing Go..
I'm not familiar with that game,but I have a classmate who ranks the highest level of amateurs...
|Nov-29-10|| ||nvrennvren: so, "xxx" from india..didn't attend the games?|
|Nov-29-10|| ||nvrennvren: to visayanbraindoctor..china has 1.5 billion people.. but can't find 11 players able to qualify to football world cup ...thank
to the "fine state-sponsored" sports program..|
|Dec-03-10|| ||visayanbraindoctor: <nvrennvren: china has 1.5 billion people.. but can't find 11 players able to qualify to football world cup ...thank to the "fine state-sponsored" sports program..> |
And your point is?
Are you pointing out that Chinese physique (the slim East Asian physique) is generally inferior to those of Europeans and Africans when it comes to playing football?
It's an interesting hypothesis though, if what you are saying is that it's possible that the Europeans (and as a corollary more so with Africans), with their bulkier muscle mass, more robust skeletons, and possibly longer limb to body ratio have the advantage over East Asians in many of the 'athletic' sports.
|Dec-04-10|| ||asianwarrior: I wonder why, until now, games in the semi final anMay the chessgames.com give an update.d final games were not yet posted. May the chessgames.com post the update?|
|Dec-06-10|| ||mahmoudkubba: One can understand the difficulties in understanding the games, ways of making the tournaments, and many other things,,, but on the other hand, how to know who r the participating countries???|
|Dec-16-10|| ||nvrennvren: that was not the motive of my post. I was to point out the corruption and stupid mindset of chinese officials..|
but I agree they are athletically inferior.. but football is not all athletical. so china still has chance if the attitude and system can be changed.
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 4 OF 4 ·