Author: eightyeight

FOR CHINA TO HAVE PEACE, IT MUST BE POWERFUL! [Copy link] 中文

Rank: 8Rank: 8

Post time 2007-2-16 13:12:38 |Display all floors
Originally posted by jetsam at 15/2/2007 04:46 AM


. .. Freakin' Amerikans do.

The difference is the intent and the motive.

Firstly, China has previously explored the world 80 years before Chris Columbus. China only wanted trade (though a ...


you mean the same worthless, fat, mentally retarded, emotionally disturbed, unpleasantly juvenile Anglos? that ended world war two and stopped all of China from speaking Japanese , the same worthless, fat, mentally retarded, emotionally disturbed, unpleasantly juvenile Anglos? that every business in China is trying to sell there merchandise too, you mean the worthless, fat, mentally retarded, emotionally disturbed, unpleasantly juvenile Anglos? that give humanitarian aid all round the world , you are indeed the product of a shallow gene pool with a somewhat purile way of seeing things, I know you don't speak for the rest of Chinese people as they are lovely open minded people :) have a nice day thinking purile thoughts .
There are no Ugly women , only those with low self esteem .

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 8Rank: 8

Post time 2007-2-16 16:36:39 |Display all floors

Cyberspook

Don't be confused

I just realized (after not having any food for over 24 hours my mind is now strangely clear)

that all those guys work for the US government

changabubla and Fletsom and their friends

they pretend to be Chinese

and post juvenile rantings

so US citizens (and some British) will read them and say "Oh, those Chinese are out to get us, we must support our government in spending even more on weapons"

So I know they are really fake Chinese people working for the CIA

Bad CIA

Naughty CIA



Except Chinese_Yang - she was just a bit moody, I miss you CNY !
"We know it's weakness, but the weakness is so strong!"

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 6Rank: 6

Post time 2007-3-15 10:43:48 |Display all floors

Gnarg

Howdy all,

Please forgive my absence from this thread, I was lost in the lack of communication twixt me and certain others ...

*******88



Back to cyberspook:

The direction of our world is ever more towards materialism, consumerism, greed, lust, vanity, attachment, etc. Such difficulties and their related vices become all the more apparent as time goes on -- the days of firing musket balls at each other has long passed. Whole entire throngs of very innocent people are held hostage and bartered as chattel by the games and going-ons of those who wield such overwhelming power and responsibility (or lack of it) over the rest of us. That is reality.

Hollywood just released a movie, the 300, which has inflamed a portion of the world that stands in great potential armed conflict (at a rather elevated stage, perhaps even nuclear) with other portions of this world of which the US (the source of this inappropriately timed film) is a large contingent. This kind of behavior is in-vocative and not at all helpful towards any attempt to find peace, understanding, acceptance and eventual trust.

Where are the restrictions on the Hollywood hooligans whose pen is so much mightier than the sword? And, why are the innocent Americans being placed in harm's way for such irresponsible and cavalier behavior?

[WHISTLE]



This is the age is of ratcheted technology, so providence has described it, by whatever means.

China needs to be a voice, but it has to have 'street credit', without which, it will simply be ignored and abused, as it is now by the US (in their refusal to give-up on Taiwan) and Japan (their resource and land/ocean grab of China's territory and their snubbing of their humane responsibility towards those they have aggregiously and very criminally abused), just for instance.

I is nice if we can find folks like Gandhi -- and I reckon that China has demonstrated in its relatively current past that it is not only quite loyal to its friends but can also be trusted. But I reckon that Theodore Roosevelt fixed the current concept to world affairs best, "walk softly, but carry a big stick", and I know there are a lot of Nations that became very thankful that the US had done such a thing in its past, though now the giant has gotten way too big and far too far out-of-control -- that is an advanced matter and far from the frontier stage of China, at present.

China needs 'street credit' to be heard!

Plain and simple.



:)

[ Last edited by eightyeight at 2007-3-15 10:48 AM ]

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 6Rank: 6

Post time 2007-3-15 10:50:06 |Display all floors

Reply #30 pandamonium's post

Hehehe.

Well, at least jetsam has left us all guessing as to what he means by Anglo, and whether or not he recognizes himself as such.


Use magic tools Report

Rank: 6Rank: 6

Post time 2007-3-15 10:52:55 |Display all floors

What's behind increase in the military budget

The following was lifted from: http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2007-03/15/content_828342.htm

What's behind increase in the military budget
By Xu Guangyu (China Daily)
Updated: 2007-03-15 06:39


At the Fifth Session of the 10th National People's Congress, it was announced that the country's military budget for 2007 is 350.92 billion yuan, or roughly US$44.94 billion. This marks a 17.8 per cent increase over the previous year, or $6.8 billion.

The increase has drawn wide attention from the international community. Many express misgivings out of shear misunderstanding. But some look at the increase through stained lenses or stretch the matter to suit their own ends. Others try to use the growth in China's military spending to create a propaganda splash.

A famous Chinese saying goes: "Seeking truth after facts." There is a similar saying in the West: "Facts speak louder than words." These two sayings apply to evaluating China's military spending increase.

I would like to offer my point of view in the hope of clearing away misunderstanding.

First comes the question: Why the increase by the unprecedented wide margin of 17.8 percent?

The growth is primarily caused by the sharp increase in the wages, living expenses and pensions of 2.3 million People's Liberation Army officers, civilian personnel, soldiers and army retirees. The pay rise came in the latter half of 2006.

Large numbers of officers from battalion level down and non-commissioned officers received the sharpest pay rise 100 percent.

These people constitute the backbone of the military forces, directly involved in leading soldiers in military duties, training programs and logistical activities. On the personal side, they are the primary source of income for their families. Over a long period of time, their wages have remained very modest.

In view of all this, it is imperative to raise their pay by large margins.

The pay of the officers from the regimental level up, civilian personnel and army retirees has also been increased by 80 percent.

At the same time, all rank-and-file soldiers' living allowances and board expenses have also been increased.

The composition of the Chinese military expenditure is roughly the same as that of the United States. Wages, housing and services take up almost one-third of the total spending.

Take 2006. These categories of expenditure stood at $12 billion, within the total $38.1 billion. Of this $12 billion, $8 billion went to wages, living costs and pensions.

With the rise in these budget by an average of 60 percent in 2007, the total increase in these categories reaches $4.8 billion. This accounts for the lion's share in the growth of 2007's total military spending.

Of course, spending on hardware research and development and weapons procurement has also increased. And the money spent on training and exercises and on maintaining military activities has risen, too. But this kind of spending growth pales beside the increase in personnel expenditures.

It is unlikely that military personnel wages will go up by large margins every year. So, the possibility is extremely low that the country's military spending will increase dramatically in the coming years.

There is another question: Does China's military expenditure outstrip its actual needs now that the 2007 Chinese military budget has surpassed Japan's $42 billion and Germany's $37.5? It still trails Britain's $62.38 billion and France's US$50.78 billion. It is a fraction of the United States' $532.8 billion,

China's military spending falls far behind that of many other countries, whether in terms of actual amount, military personnel per capita expenditure, or the general population per capita military spending.

The country's military budget ranks fourth among the world countries and its GDP also stands fourth in the world. Coincidence? Maybe. I think the two No 4 positions are logically connected to each other.

China is a big country. The military is, therefore, obligated with overwhelmingly heavy tasks in defending the country. To compound this, the country is threatened by separatism, terrorism and hegemonism. In view of all this, China's sizable military spending is totally justified.

My latest research shows that a country would find it hard to achieve military modernization when military personnel per capita spending remains below $100,000.

The US military's per capita budget in 2007, for instance, is $383,000, the highest in the world. Next comes Britain ($324,000), followed by Japan ($175,000), Germany ($148,000) and France ($146,000).

In contrast, China's per capita spending on its soldiers is only US$19,540. The country has set a rather moderately paced timetable by today's international standards to modernize its military forces. Extending to 2050, it covers three stages: from 2006 to 2010, from 2010 to 2020, and from 2020 to 2050.

It is predicted that, during these three phases of military modernization, China's military budget will increase moderately each year to keep up with the country's economic development and its defense needs. This is aimed at closing the wide military strength gaps between the country and the world's military powers.

Does China's military expenditure outstrip its actual defense needs? Facts constitute the best gauge.

Western military analysts are very clear that Chinese fleets, air force, ground troops and strategic rocket forces are on a secondary tier with the world's leading military powers in terms of quality and quantity of its core battle equipment.

The basic facts and stark reality determine that it is impossible for China to enter an arms race with the world's military powers. Most important of all, China's State strategy and military strategy are geared to peaceful development and active defense.

The ultimate goal is to build a harmonious society inside the country and a world in harmony outside. So the country needs no military expansion or a strategy designed for military interference overseas. China has no military bases overseas and the country has never launched pre-emptive attacks against others.

By all measures, Chinese military expenditure is still very humble.

The author is a council member of China Arms Control and Disarmament Association

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 4

Post time 2007-3-18 23:29:40 |Display all floors

Reply #33 eightyeight's post

GOOD POST ! Their is someone on this forum with rational !

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 6Rank: 6

Post time 2007-3-19 08:51:39 |Display all floors

Thanks, convair1948

Originally posted by convair1948 at 2007-3-18 23:29
GOOD POST ! Their is someone on this forum with rational !



Hahaha, thank you for the compliment convair1948! I would actually bother to write more if I had the time, the will, the energy and I wasn't always fending off stupid insults from children and the blind-hatred of ignorant racists like changabula and jetsam.

Use magic tools Report

You can't reply post until you log in Log in | register

BACK TO THE TOP
Contact us:Tel: (86)010-84883548, Email: blog@chinadaily.com.cn
Blog announcement:| We reserve the right, and you authorize us, to use content, including words, photos and videos, which you provide to our blog
platform, for non-profit purposes on China Daily media, comprising newspaper, website, iPad and other social media accounts.