Ah, Lizi, my friend! Now we do have something to agree on! 
I think all the rational people now have realized that CCP stops at no evil to maitain its evil power.
It has committed a lot of sins to Chinese people.
This painting illustrates that a truly great masterpiece is very rich in meanings and far beyond a reenactment of the terror, blood and gore in reality. By looking at this seemingly simple portrait, we can imagine the sad stories behind the portrait. Every small detail in the painting leads the audience to imagine the horrible and thuggish nature of the CCP and its henchmen. The audience can easily imagine that the young couple
[quote]I think all the rational people now have realized that CCP stops at no evil to maitain its evil power.
It has committed a lot of sins to Chinese people. [/quote]
I think that all rational people have been aware of this for many, many years. Your rantings had absolutely nothing to do with it. 
The top Chinese generals suck. It was also just a few years ago when some loser was telling us how the U.S. ought not to be concerned with Taiwan âif we care about Los Angeles.â
[quote=âsandmanâ][quote]I think all the rational people now have realized that CCP stops at no evil to maitain its evil power.
It has committed a lot of sins to Chinese people. [/quote]
I think that all rational people have been aware of this for many, many years. Your rantings had absolutely nothing to do with it. [/quote]
Really? but I have not seen more rational people speak out for the victims of the evil party here.
The more voice of justice can make the evil frightened; the voice of justice can wake up those who have been cheated, used by evil, and I think this is a form of combat between good and evil.
The discussion above assumes or implies 1.) the PLA is a monolithic institution with one voice, 2.)PLA generals speak for the state on military affairs officially or unoficially and 3.) the use and counter-use of unclear weapons is âwar logicâ and can be materialised if situatoins demand. These assumptions are wrong.
The PLA has divisions along ideological, factious, strategic and especially relationship (guanxi) fault lines like other bureaucracies in China and in other countries. Soon after the nuclear threat, another general Liu Yiazhou (ĺäşć´˛) published an article in Hong Kong taking an extremely progressive and moderate stance compared with Zhuâs comments.
Liu is a Lieut. Gen., which makes him one level seiror than Zhu. It is fair to say that PLA generals are politically diciplined and nationalistic, rarely speaking publicly again government policies especially regarding the issue of Taiwan, but they do stand more for the factions they belong to in times of change and struggle. Different PLA factions fought each other in a virtual civil war during the cultural revolution. Jiang promoted more generals than Mao and Deng combined to build his own facton. The PLA is not monolithic and has many factions. This brings to my speculation of a possible political struggle between Jiangâs people and Huâs group. From the SARS epidemic onward, these two factions are constantly twisting arms against each other. So far, Hu has won overwhelmingly. Jiang, after the Tienanmen and in the 1990s, is known to have build a âpatriotic educationâ in China associate strongly with anti-Japan and anti-West nationalism. Gen. Liu once revealed in an article that Jiang said in a high level military meeting that a war across the Strait is unavoidable. I wonder why Liu would divulge this secret to the public. One explanation is that he is speaking for someone from the top to compromise Jiangâs domestic and international image. Few Chinese would speak for Taiwan indepedence, but when it comes to war, getting rich is glorious is still the norm. Mao bilt his empire on ideology, Deng on economic practicality and Jiang nationalism. Hu has moved on to âloving peopleâ. War is not the best way to show onceâs affection but it sure reminds me of Jiangâs generals of 1995 and 1996.
âLogicâ use of nuclear weapons leads to illogic behaviours. Nucks are deterrents and not instruments of war. They are more of a political than military nature. Being a deterrent rather than a mere weapon means nucks have never been used since WWII when the full implications of them were not yet understood and hence no comprehensive strategies were developed. Itâs a handy tool to deter and a lousy way to compel. When both failed, there is also the moral taboo and the MAD that stop it from being used. The only logic behind nucks is no-use at all. Once instrumentalised, the initiator gives up the choice of escalation and disadvantageously removes the deterrent for the opponent. Attacking invites counterattacks. Besides, there is nothing worse than an unfulfilled threat. Building nucks are more of a symbol of status now. Many countries have talked lightly about using them. None, not even the most hedious ones, have done it. Letâs hope it remains this way. Zhuâs statements are indications of a poliltical struggle played out beyond the realm of the military. They demonstrates how serious the PLA and China are. But they are serious threats, should be seen as threast, and nothing more than threats. [/url]
phoenixtv is the Xinhua agency in Hong Kong actually.
In a show of strength to save itself from demise, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) rolled out its sinister plan prepared for years, a plan in which the Party makes an insane gamble from its deathbed. It did so in the form of a
Lizi, everyone I know here agrees about the evils of the CCP, and the plight of its victims. These truths are so well known here, that we donât spend much time discussing them. Our silence doesnât mean we disagree; itâs just that youâre stating the obvious, so we have no need to comment. If you are interested in discussion, youâll have to find more interesting ways to engage us in conversation. âThe CCP is evilâ is a non-starter. It wonât get a conversation started. âWhat do you think of xxx Generalâs threat to nuke LA?â is more interesting, and more likely to get answers. âWould China really nuke LA?â âShould the world boycott the Olympics in China due to lack of improvement in human rights?â
These are topics that will bring people in for discussion. Do you see the difference?
I look forward to more discussions with you in the future.