at certain level i agree with you, colonel.
I am a little bit oversimplying things.
ancient chinese are trouble makers or even trouble seekers, if you ever read stories on Ban Chao 班超 in Han Dynasty, you will know what i mean. but after a long cilvilized and closed time, people get too ... well, civilized.
Mao's people war theory frequently misinterpreted as "people sea tactic", but it has more deep things than that. one should not be missed is about how to educate people (or brainwash people as some people prefer). to be a player or a audience, or just a prop. Mao want more chinese players. (maybe he want chinese have a chance to apologize to other people and liberate other people, not vis versa.
)
i don't know his ultimate motive, perhaps he wanted a big name in history to feed his ego, but at least he partially succeeded, a certain percentage of chinese poplution are poisoned by his toughts.
Today ccp is more and more like KMT in the old days, lots of key positions are filled with people having a fancy certificate like harvard or yale PhD, but pre-war politic game is more like a turn-base game rather than a real time game. china moves, then waits for its opponents move, during the whole game, even the decision maker can be changed, not to mention the strategy. maybe when conflict escalating to the final stage, some cunning, charismatic, yet stronghead peasant will take over the game, and how he will play? only god knows.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers
I strongly disagree with such a simplistic approach to view Chinese politics. It is no more complex nor simple as any other system. There are a different set of values but the approach is identical. What is in your own best interests?
I've asked the question before and thus far, no Chinese national ever got my point. Could the CCP survive another 1979 1st Sino-Vietnam War when they lost 30,000 troops just to teach Vietnam a lesson. In 30 days, Deng Xia Peng threw away 30,000 lives. Could Hu do this?
There is no Ying or Yang or whatever. Everything is based upon cold blooded calculations. Again, I raise the example of the 1st 1979 Sino-Vietnam War. The target was not Hanoi but Moscow. The 38th and 39th Group Armies stayed north. They did not go south.
Why would anyone send 2nd rate troops against a prepared defence that had over 6 months to prepare? Frankly I was amazed at how well those troops actually did in destroying 3 Vietnamese Provincial Capital but that does not excuse the fact there was no ying or yang to this. China needed to break the Soviet encirclement and proceeded to do so.
As for the Tibet issue, again if you have known the history, it was Deng Xia Peng who forever took the politics off the table with any negotiations with the Dali Lama. The only thing the CCP will negotiate with the man is where he can sleep.
If there is any term I would use with the current CCP rule, it is pragmaticism. I strongly believe that the Chinese people are more than capable of practicing democracy but at this point, they are not willing, mainly because DXP's momentum has not run out of steam just yet.
But by far my main disagreement with this thesis is that the Chinese views this as a ho-hum affair. "We will take this in stride" type mentality. Chinese history has proven this mentality to be false. People died. And people struggled through blood and tears to put China back together again time and time again. That kind of fortitude requires belief. It is not putting on a jacket and taking off the coat at convience.
|