They're everywhere!
Something batty about the whole bunch of them!
Posted on 09/07/2020 5:49:02 PM PDT by familyop
Chang's comments follow a recent Pentagon report suggesting that China is planning to double its stockpile of nuclear warheads in this decade -- including those designed for ballistic missiles and that can reach the U.S. The report adds a time clock to Trump's decision, Chang said. "[President] Xi Jinping has been talking increasingly about this notion that China has a mandate of heaven to rule the world," Chang explained. "They [beleive that they] not only have the right to do it, they have the obligation to do it.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
“Well they were tweaking a virus to damage and kill a bunch of folks.”
Paid for by Fau Chi.
Gordon G. Chang is the author of “The Coming Collapse of China.”
We don’t need, nor should we desire, to kill large numbers of their civilians. However, we MUST do whatever is necessary to bring down their communist government. Nuclear weapons and other threats aside, even the threat of another Wuhan virus-type incident is completely unacceptable. We cannot go through this mess again, and therefore must to everything necessary to END the communist Chinese government, as soon as possible.
“China has a surprise coming.“
They will, but millions will die unfortunately
It’s just unnerving to me that they could send an army of 400 million over here (more than one solider per US citizen) and STILL have a billion people..
Hes a soros operative
They gave as many people as they can continue to feed.
Evil.
Even if Epoch Times is a Falun Gong cult, does that make their reports inaccurate?
The Silent Service are still functional Americans. They would need to walk here across the bottom of the ocean.
Christ will come back if there are still constellations named Orion and Pleiades. One of God’s references to His ownership.
China is like every other powerful non-Western* civilization (including Russia) - its very long-term goal is a single country on Earth ruled from its capital. China itself is an accumulation of lands and peoples acquired at swordpoint over thousands of years.
That policy of gradualism is not because Chinese rulers are long-term thinkers. Multiple dynasties have crumbled in that interval, and no ruler hedged his bets to make things easier for the next one. The problem was economic and political constraints.
Rulers who went a war too far found themselves beset by peasant rebellions as well as elite mutinies, due to the huge financial expenditures required, which caused both taxation and inflation to go through the roof. Outsized human costs were also a factor. 2200 years ago, China's Spartacus was a peasant rebel - mounting one of many draft revolts - who founded a dynasty that lasted 400 years. Peasant rebels have founded 3 dynasties lasting 1/3 of China's 2200 year history since the First Emperor's creation of a unitary Chinese state. Elite mutinies have created the basis for most of the other dynasties.
There's a portion of the Oscar-winning (for visuals) movie "Hero" that I found startling, but may illuminate the Chinese viewpoint. (Spoiler alert) The hero desists from assassinating the First Emperor, who created the first (less than 1/4 the current) unified Chinese state because the emperor says to him that peace on earth can only be achieved when someone rules "all under heaven":
Translation of "Tianxia"
There has been some criticism of the film for its American-release translation of one of the central ideas in the film: Tiānxià (天下) which literally means "Under heaven", and is a phrase to mean "the World". For its release in Belgium, two years before the U.S. release, the subtitled translation was "all under heaven". The version shown in American cinemas was localized as the two-word phrase "our land" instead, which seems to denote just the nation of China rather than the whole world. Whether Zhang Yimou intended the film to also have meaning with regard to the world and world unity was at that time difficult to say. Zhang Yimou was asked about the change at a screening in Massachusetts and said it was a problem of translation: "If you ask me if 'Our land' is a good translation, I can't tell you. All translations are handicapped. Every word has different meanings in different cultures."[14] In Cause: The Birth of Hero – a documentary on the making of Hero – Zhang mentions that he hopes the film will have some contemporary relevance, and that, in the aftermath of the September 11 attacks (which took place just before the movie was filmed) the themes of universal brotherhood and "peace under heaven" may indeed be interpreted more globally, and taken to refer to peace in "the world."[15][16] The phrase was later changed in television-release versions of the film.
In reality, this proclaimed yearning for peace was basically the emperor's excuse for raising his personal prestige. He succeeded. However, he failed in the most fundamental sense - like Alexander and Muhammad, he had no issue - they were exterminated when his dynasty crumbled immediately after his death.
I’ve never subscribed to the theory that national leaders acquire land by force because of political or economic necessity. Publicly, they’ll justify these efforts that way, because the soldiers risking their lives and the loved ones they leave behind don’t want to hear that the war is being waged so their leaders can become famous for posterity. An Olympic athlete or a mountain climber can straightforwardly own up to his personal ambition because all that’s at risk is his personal investment in the task he has set for himself. A national leader cannot, for obvious reasons.
In fact, how do you distinguish between desperation and simple ambition? I don’t think you can. IMHO, Xi believes China has finally become strong enough to make these ventures the kind of bet a gambling man might take odds on. The shibboleth of our time is that war is hell, and no leader ever embarks on it except out of desperation. It’s, however, contrary to most of what we know about history. Leaders go to war for the same reason athletes compete in the Olympics - for personal fame and glory.
Kings go to war not because they need to, but because they want to. What they’re after is to make a name for themselves that will stand the test of time. By a country mile, the most famous Greek is Alexander, just as the most famous Roman is Caesar. That’s no accident. For better or for worse, conquerors will always have a special place in the history books. War is like a large scale hunt in which the guy who organized it and brought home a lot of trophies puts his name in neon lights for posterity.
Heck, even the losers become famous in ways nobody expected. Without his disastrous loss at Carrhae, just how well-known would the richest man in Rome, Crassus, be?
People who go on about Xi Jinping needing a distraction from domestic problems are ignoring everything we know about history. Chinese leaders are made in the mold of the leaders of powerful countries since probably the dawn of time - they did not sign up for their jobs to become glorified administrators/security people for accountants and financiers. They are building this wealth so they can construct an army to acquire fame for themselves. Alexander and Caesar accumulated wealth to fight wars. They didn’t fight wars to accumulate wealth. The end game was, first and foremost, eternal fame, or infamy, if they failed.
Saddam Hussein had all the money he needed. What he wanted was to be mentioned in the same breath as Saladin. Even in failure, he has placed his name in a more prominent position than any of his Arab contemporaries, with the exception of bin Laden. And bin Laden started his miniature war, his jihad, to become famous, just like all the rest. Despite the manner of his demise, he is famous beyond any Arab or Muslim of the past century.
* Until WWI and WWII, the Western powers were perennially in a horse race with respect to territorial competition. That may yet resume, despite a period of post-WWII decadence.
15 minutes. Ohio Class subs. Could be less.
They’re the one’s picking the fight and they have no idea what they’re doing.
When we fought the Cold War, we had a hard core of patriotic polls, and the USSR did not have China's monetary ability to buy off American politicians.
This from a country that has to back off from India because of fist fights
Pearl clutchers here won’t sleep tonight or for many years
Wars are fought for status, sometimes, but mostly for survival and loot.
Loot may include land and tribute.
Successful leaders want more land and tribute to be able to do more, which can include more land and tribute which contibutes to more safety (survival).
Leaders may wish to be remembered, most probably do.. but it is generally a secondary or tertiary desire.
First, they want to survive.
Second, they want power, status, wealth, and everything that goes with it.
Successful war aids both of the first two desires.
Even if Epoch Times is a Falun Gong cult, does that make their reports inaccurate?
= = = =
Good question.
They get called so many names, they must be over the target.
He is beginning to think and dream more and more like Hitler.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.