超级军网值得一看的评论--清醒的美国人
来源：百度文库 编辑：超级军网 时间：2024/04/27 21:16:30
主帖：
The People's Republic of China recently released its 2011 White Paper on National Defense. As a result, there were a lot of discussions on the impact of the rise of China's military power and the perception of its threat to United States interest. It is interesting to observe that there is a lack of comparisons of the military capacity between these two countries. It will be helpful to take a look at China and the United States military budgets and see how much each side has devoted to defend its land, protect its people, and ensure no disruption to its economy.
中华人民共和国最近发布的2011年的国防白皮书。其结果是,出现了很多讨论，内容是关于中国崛起的军事力量的影响，以及威胁到美国利益的看法。很有趣地发现到，对这两个国家，却缺乏对他们的军事能力的对比分析。看看中美军事预算以及各方投入多少到国防中，来守卫他们的领土、人民，并保证对自己的经济不会造成破坏，这将会很有益处。
中国军事预算是915亿美元，美国是6638亿美元；
中国领土9,596,960平方公里，美国领土9,629,091平方公里；
中国军队平均花费9,534美元保护一平方公里领土，而美国是68,936美元；
中国花费平均70美元保护一个公民，而美国是2,119美元；
中国使用1.4%的GDP在军事上，美国使用4.7%；
中国军队有2,285,000，美国军队有1,580,255；
中国一个士兵保护585个中国公民，美国一个士兵保护198个美国公民；
中国每个士兵花40,043美元，美国花420,058美元;
以下是评论：
Vernondelray 13 hours ago (6:35 PM) 24 Fans
Thank you for the article. I have always had an ambiguous opinion of China based in ignorance. However, what totally leaps off the page for me are the statistics regarding U.S. military spending. Given America's current economic situation (massive debt), I do not see how this military spending can in any context be considered sustainable, nor is it necessary (in my opinion). Perhaps we wield our influence and might too freely. Almost every state in our country is so cash starved they are gutting education spending and social programs, the federal government is being pushed politically to follow suit, all the while the military budget, which is far greater than education and social programs combined, is apparently politically untouchable. This cannot be sustained for much longer. We need an educated generation to follow this one (which could be viewed as massively uneducated based on pop culture), lest we all risk our future being handled by a generation of dullards.
谢谢你的文章。由于对中国不了解，在对中国的问题上，我的看法总是很模糊。
然而，关于美国的军事开支统计数据，让我忍不住想说点什么。考虑到美国目前的经济形势，我不明白这些军事开支怎么可能支撑得起，也不认为有什么必要（个人的意见）。也许我们太随意展现自己的影响力。
在我们国家几乎每个州都是如此的资金匮乏，他们摧毁了教育支出和社会福利项目,
联邦政府也正被迫在政策上跟风，一直来的军事预算,远超于教育和社会项目加起来的总和,显然，政策上，是不可以动的。
这不可能持续太长时间，我们需要受过教育的一代跟进（现在的这些人，都是些可以看作是大量没受教育的，只会追求流行文化的人），以免我们大家冒着风险，把我们的未来交给愚蠢的一代人来指挥。
―――――――――――――――――――――
HUFFPOST BLOGGER
Fred Teng 19 minutes ago (7:38 AM) 130 Fans
Follow Vernondelr ay, you have touched a point which I often made.
Education is America investment in itself, building freeways and internet freeways (by freeways I do mean FREE) is an investment in our infrastructure. But unfortunat ely, Congress and the White House look at them as spending. Together we have to change the mind set of our politicians.
回复Vernondelray，你谈到了我经常提出的一点。教育是对美国自身的投资，建设高速公路以及互联网高速路（对高速公路，我意思确实是说免费）。
是投资于我们的基础建设。但不幸的是,国会和白宫把它们看成消费。我们必须合力改变我们政客的想法。
――――――――――――――――――――――――
Howardxue 16 hours ago (4:05 PM) 0 Fans
I feel amused everytime when some hawkishs called China's military modernization and navy and air force surfing near their coastline "assertive ", "aggressive" or "bullying" , while US keep sending swarms of jet fighters, aircraft carriers, and spy ships thousands of miles away from US homeland, to China's door step, to hold lots of military exercises.
I can remember that during the WW2 the Japanese army used to accusing resisting Chinese army "aggressive". According to the Japanese war criminals' theory during WW2, the Chinese army should give up to avoid more casualties whenever they are attacked by Japan, otherwise they will be labelled "aggressive" and should be punished and held responsible for the casualty of civilants killed by the always-rig ht Japanese Royal Army.
It is China, not any other country, that experience d the "century of humiliation", when the country was too weak to protect itself from foreigners using their gunships to assert their wills and loot treasures and resources. China has learned the history lesson in the hardest way, that it has to build enough defence to avoid repeating the "century of humiliation". Thank you Mr. Teng for your informativ eanalysis and strong messges. I pray for more understanding between the two people of US and China. May peace triumph.
每当我看到一些鹰派主张中国的现代化军事，海军、空军到其海岸线附近做“炫耀”、“挑衅”或“欺负”的运动就觉得好笑。然而美国人不断地往千里迢迢之外的中国地界输送大量喷气式战斗机,航空母舰,间谍船, 不断地进行军事演习。
我记得二战时日本军队曾经指责中国军队的“侵略性”。据二战期间的日本战犯的说法，中国军队应该停止制造更多的伤亡，即使是中国人被日本人攻击的时候，否则中国人就要被永远是正确的“日本皇军”冠“侵略性”，并承担日本人民伤亡的责任。
当一个国家太过软弱而无力保护自己免受外国人侵略，让外国人使用自己本国的炮舰达到抢劫财富和掠夺资源的目的。这就是中国，没有其他任何国家，经历过这样的“百年屈辱”。中国从历史中学到教训，这是一个艰难的过程。这使得中国不得不建立得当的防御,以避免重复过去的“百年屈辱”。
谢谢Teng先生您的精彩分析及强大的资讯。我希望美国和中国两国人民能有更多的互相了解。愿和平永存。
―――――――――――――――――――――――――
HUFFPOST BLOGGER
Fred Teng 17 minutes ago (7:40 AM) 130 Fans
Follow Howardxue, apparently you have been studying China for a while.
you too should write your opinion on blogs such as the Huffington Post
回复Howardxue, 显然你一直在研究中国: 你也应写出您的意见发到博客上，如赫芬顿邮报。
（编者译：赫芬顿邮报（The Huffington Post）是美国当今最具影响力新闻博客网站。网站兼具有博客自主性与媒体公共性，通过“分布式”的新闻发掘方式和以WEB2.0为基础的社会化新闻交流模式而独树一帜。通过对赫芬顿邮报的报道内容进行分析，可以发现其在聚合网络社群，推动公共交流等方面的积极作用。）
――――――――――――――――――――――――――
AndrewCiccone 08:25 PM on 4/19/2011 114 Fans
Follow China has been wagging an economic war with the western world since the Nixon Administration. Regan smashed The Berlin Wall fell, The Russian Republic is no more. China is embracing capitalism . Not really. Russia has tactfully parked their tanks a stones throw from Iraq. The Chinese are building and manufactur ing products and services like crazy. Thankfully China has no interest in the rest of the world, the Great Wall still keeps the west out.
自从尼克松时代以来，中国与西方国家的经济战争一直持续着。里根粉碎了柏林墙,俄罗斯联邦一去不复返。中国开始进行资本主义。事实上并非如此。俄罗斯巧妙地把矛头指向伊朗。中国开始疯狂地开始建设，制造产品，提供服务。令人欣慰的是,中国对其它国家没有兴趣,长城依然将西方人阻挡在外。
―――――――――――――――――――――――
HUFFPOST BLOGGER
Fred Teng 09:57 PM on 4/19/2011 130 Fans
Follow Andrew, It was Kissinger and Nixon wanted to open China. Why, for two reasons, one to balance out USSR, the other is trade. Actually it has been a win-win situation for both nations. During the earlier years, the U.S. was actually selling more to China. Why the recent down falls, because American consumers want cheaper prices, and higher wages, so American companies go to developing nations to produce the product to sell to American consumers. When American consumers run out of money the government cut its own tax revenue and borrow from other countries to keep up its own economy.
You are right, China has no interest in rest of the world, because it wants to take of of its own people first.
回复 Andrew,是基辛格和尼克松想要打开中国市场。为什么,两个原因,一个为了制抵苏联,另一种是贸易。实际上对两国来说都是一个双赢的政策。早期,美国实际上是更多的出口中国。为什么近来的情况却相反呢？因为美国的消费者希望更低的价格，更高的薪水, 所以美国的公司到发展中国家生产产品卖给美国消费者。当美国消费者的钱花光了,政府就减少税收，并向其他国家借款来保持自己的经济不滑坡。
你说的是对的,中国对世界其他国家没有兴趣,因为中国是把自己的人民放在首位。
――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Dknight99 15 hours ago (4:35 PM) 17 Fans
I would disagree that China has no interest in the rest of the world.
China has invested heavily in Africa and is pouring capital into the continent, and attempting to re create a win-win situation between China and Africa through trade. China also has trade deals with Asean counties and in South America. I remember reading about China's interest in creating a fast rail connecting China to Europe. So I would say China is very interested in the world but in securing resources and promoting global trade.
我不支持中国对世界上其它国家没有兴趣的观点。中国有大量投资在非洲,往欧洲大陆注入大量资金 ,试图通过中非之间的贸易再创一个双赢的局面。中国与东南亚国家和南美之间也有贸易往来。我记得有看到过报道，中国有意向在中国和欧洲之间建立高速铁路。所以我认为, 中国对世界是很感兴趣, 目的在于在获取资源,推动全球贸易。
―――――――――――――――――――――――――――
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Yeuk Moy 18 hours ago (1:48 PM) 15 Fans
There is an asian concept of "The Way". You must seek the "The Way" to attain your goals. Bruce Lee tried (with varying success) to inform the general public of "The Way" with respect to martial arts. Many, who do not have a concept of "The Way", think of it as the one way of thinking that allows trenscendence, or the one martial arts technique that will make you invincible , etc. In actuality, seeking "The Way" means seeking "what works". It is a variation on the journey vs the destination.
China has been seeking "The Way". Communism has brought them this far.
They now know that Communism can take them no further. They seek another path and sees Capitalism and Democracy as potential paths. What makes them different than others who have failed in the transition is that they are purposely taking a slow and steady pace. Too often, it is the rate of change that does the most damage, rather than the change itself (i.e. It isn't the falling frome a skyscraper that kills you, it is the sudden stop at the end).
有一种亚洲精神“道”。你必须寻求“道路”来实现自己的目标。李小龙试图（获得过不同的成功）通过军事艺术向公众传播武术之“道”。 没有任何一个概念可以准确的描述出“道”，它是一种精神，让你不断的追求进步，或一个武功招式，让你立于不败之地，等等。在现实生活中，追求“道”其实就是追求“方法”。这是通往成功之路的艰巨过程。
中国一直在寻求“道路”，共产主义带偏了路。现在他们知道共产主义不能再带领他们前进。他们开始寻找另一条出路，并将资本主义和民主做为潜在途径。使他们不同于其他人的转型失败，是他们开辟了稳步前进的步伐。急功近利,转型的速度太快,这样会导致更严重的损失,而不是在于改变（即：并不是从摩天大楼上坠落让你丧命，而是在要到终点时忽然停止才导致丧命。）
――――――――――――――――――――――――――
HUFFPOST BLOGGER
Fred Teng 15 minutes ago (7:42 AM) 130 Fans
Follow Yeuk, I love what you have said "Too often, it is the rate of change that does the most damage, rather than the change itself (i.e. It isn't the falling frome a skyscraper that kills you, it is the sudden stop at the end). " I might use that sometimes. Long live The Way :-)
回复 Yeuk，我非常喜爱你说的那句“急功近利,转型的速度太快,这样会导致更严重的损失,而不是在于改变（即：并不是从摩天大楼上坠落让你丧命，而是在要到终点时忽然停止才导致丧命。”
―――――――――――――――――――――――
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Richard Pearce 05:41 PM on 4/19/2011 447 Fans
The writer has ignored or overlooked two essential points about China.
The first is that China is the definition of evil. (After all, the size of its economy, the size of its population , its possession of nuclear weapons, and its form of government allows it to refuse to knuckle under to the US and remain immune to the economic, military, or social pressures the US is used to using to make a country at least bend to it. That makes it evil)
The second is that China is the definition of a threat to the US.
(After all, it is going to want to secure for itself, by either 'destabali sing' government s that refuse to allow it to have those resources on terms favourable to China, or directly overthrowing them.
It is also going to use its economic and military might to pressure other nations into declaring those actions a good thing for the world)
作者忽视甚至是过分强调了关于中国的下面两个基本点。
第一种是中国是邪恶的。(毕竟,其经济规模的大小,人口总数, 核武器资源。中国政府允许其拒绝屈服于美国、制抵美国惯用的使得一个国家屈服于它的方法，使得本国经济、军事、社会压力不受影响。这使得中国邪恶。）
第二,中国被认为是美国的威胁。(要么通过直接推翻那些反对中国政府拥有这些有利于中国的资源的国家，要么直接推翻他们，以保护中国的安全。它也可以用经济和军事力量来迫使其他国家承认，这些行动是有利于世界发展的。）
―――――――――――――――――――――――――――
HUFFPOST BLOGGER
Fred Teng 10:00 PM on 4/19/2011 130 Fans
Follow Richard, it is easy to call other countries "evil" but some people in those other countries are calling us the same names. The point is to better understand each other and build trust. This is no different than from one neighbor to another. It will take time.
回复 Richard, 将其他国家定义为“邪恶”是很容易的, 但那些国家的人也会同样地认为我们是邪恶的。问题在于更好地了解对方,相互信任。这跟从一个邻居到另一个的道理是一样
的，是需要时间的。
―――――――――――――――――――――――――――
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Richard Pearce 21 hours ago (10:33 AM) 447 Fans
Thought I'd laid the sarcasm on heavily enough to come through the limitation s of print.
I think in future I will start using a wink at the beginning and end of
sarcastic comments and hope the convention catches on.
我以为我已经用有限的字眼，把讽刺意味说得很明白了。我想，以后，我会在开始时使个眼色，标上“此乃讽刺”，希望别人能明白
――――――――――――――――――――――――――――
DAE 04:27 PM on 4/19/2011 263 Fans
Whenever a comprehensive article that attempts to put China in a
proper and reasonable perspective is published few people comment.
Could it be that they realize that their biased views don't stand up
under scrutiny?
当一篇分析全面，试图将中国定位得当，观点透彻的文章，人们的评论却很少。 是不是因为他们意识到，他们的观点在没有被审查通过之前并不会得到支持？
链接http://www.ltaaa.com/wtfy/1889.html
主帖：
The People's Republic of China recently released its 2011 White Paper on National Defense. As a result, there were a lot of discussions on the impact of the rise of China's military power and the perception of its threat to United States interest. It is interesting to observe that there is a lack of comparisons of the military capacity between these two countries. It will be helpful to take a look at China and the United States military budgets and see how much each side has devoted to defend its land, protect its people, and ensure no disruption to its economy.
中华人民共和国最近发布的2011年的国防白皮书。其结果是,出现了很多讨论，内容是关于中国崛起的军事力量的影响，以及威胁到美国利益的看法。很有趣地发现到，对这两个国家，却缺乏对他们的军事能力的对比分析。看看中美军事预算以及各方投入多少到国防中，来守卫他们的领土、人民，并保证对自己的经济不会造成破坏，这将会很有益处。
中国军事预算是915亿美元，美国是6638亿美元；
中国领土9,596,960平方公里，美国领土9,629,091平方公里；
中国军队平均花费9,534美元保护一平方公里领土，而美国是68,936美元；
中国花费平均70美元保护一个公民，而美国是2,119美元；
中国使用1.4%的GDP在军事上，美国使用4.7%；
中国军队有2,285,000，美国军队有1,580,255；
中国一个士兵保护585个中国公民，美国一个士兵保护198个美国公民；
中国每个士兵花40,043美元，美国花420,058美元;
以下是评论：
Vernondelray 13 hours ago (6:35 PM) 24 Fans
Thank you for the article. I have always had an ambiguous opinion of China based in ignorance. However, what totally leaps off the page for me are the statistics regarding U.S. military spending. Given America's current economic situation (massive debt), I do not see how this military spending can in any context be considered sustainable, nor is it necessary (in my opinion). Perhaps we wield our influence and might too freely. Almost every state in our country is so cash starved they are gutting education spending and social programs, the federal government is being pushed politically to follow suit, all the while the military budget, which is far greater than education and social programs combined, is apparently politically untouchable. This cannot be sustained for much longer. We need an educated generation to follow this one (which could be viewed as massively uneducated based on pop culture), lest we all risk our future being handled by a generation of dullards.
谢谢你的文章。由于对中国不了解，在对中国的问题上，我的看法总是很模糊。
然而，关于美国的军事开支统计数据，让我忍不住想说点什么。考虑到美国目前的经济形势，我不明白这些军事开支怎么可能支撑得起，也不认为有什么必要（个人的意见）。也许我们太随意展现自己的影响力。
在我们国家几乎每个州都是如此的资金匮乏，他们摧毁了教育支出和社会福利项目,
联邦政府也正被迫在政策上跟风，一直来的军事预算,远超于教育和社会项目加起来的总和,显然，政策上，是不可以动的。
这不可能持续太长时间，我们需要受过教育的一代跟进（现在的这些人，都是些可以看作是大量没受教育的，只会追求流行文化的人），以免我们大家冒着风险，把我们的未来交给愚蠢的一代人来指挥。
―――――――――――――――――――――
HUFFPOST BLOGGER
Fred Teng 19 minutes ago (7:38 AM) 130 Fans
Follow Vernondelr ay, you have touched a point which I often made.
Education is America investment in itself, building freeways and internet freeways (by freeways I do mean FREE) is an investment in our infrastructure. But unfortunat ely, Congress and the White House look at them as spending. Together we have to change the mind set of our politicians.
回复Vernondelray，你谈到了我经常提出的一点。教育是对美国自身的投资，建设高速公路以及互联网高速路（对高速公路，我意思确实是说免费）。
是投资于我们的基础建设。但不幸的是,国会和白宫把它们看成消费。我们必须合力改变我们政客的想法。
――――――――――――――――――――――――
Howardxue 16 hours ago (4:05 PM) 0 Fans
I feel amused everytime when some hawkishs called China's military modernization and navy and air force surfing near their coastline "assertive ", "aggressive" or "bullying" , while US keep sending swarms of jet fighters, aircraft carriers, and spy ships thousands of miles away from US homeland, to China's door step, to hold lots of military exercises.
I can remember that during the WW2 the Japanese army used to accusing resisting Chinese army "aggressive". According to the Japanese war criminals' theory during WW2, the Chinese army should give up to avoid more casualties whenever they are attacked by Japan, otherwise they will be labelled "aggressive" and should be punished and held responsible for the casualty of civilants killed by the always-rig ht Japanese Royal Army.
It is China, not any other country, that experience d the "century of humiliation", when the country was too weak to protect itself from foreigners using their gunships to assert their wills and loot treasures and resources. China has learned the history lesson in the hardest way, that it has to build enough defence to avoid repeating the "century of humiliation". Thank you Mr. Teng for your informativ eanalysis and strong messges. I pray for more understanding between the two people of US and China. May peace triumph.
每当我看到一些鹰派主张中国的现代化军事，海军、空军到其海岸线附近做“炫耀”、“挑衅”或“欺负”的运动就觉得好笑。然而美国人不断地往千里迢迢之外的中国地界输送大量喷气式战斗机,航空母舰,间谍船, 不断地进行军事演习。
我记得二战时日本军队曾经指责中国军队的“侵略性”。据二战期间的日本战犯的说法，中国军队应该停止制造更多的伤亡，即使是中国人被日本人攻击的时候，否则中国人就要被永远是正确的“日本皇军”冠“侵略性”，并承担日本人民伤亡的责任。
当一个国家太过软弱而无力保护自己免受外国人侵略，让外国人使用自己本国的炮舰达到抢劫财富和掠夺资源的目的。这就是中国，没有其他任何国家，经历过这样的“百年屈辱”。中国从历史中学到教训，这是一个艰难的过程。这使得中国不得不建立得当的防御,以避免重复过去的“百年屈辱”。
谢谢Teng先生您的精彩分析及强大的资讯。我希望美国和中国两国人民能有更多的互相了解。愿和平永存。
―――――――――――――――――――――――――
HUFFPOST BLOGGER
Fred Teng 17 minutes ago (7:40 AM) 130 Fans
Follow Howardxue, apparently you have been studying China for a while.
you too should write your opinion on blogs such as the Huffington Post
回复Howardxue, 显然你一直在研究中国: 你也应写出您的意见发到博客上，如赫芬顿邮报。
（编者译：赫芬顿邮报（The Huffington Post）是美国当今最具影响力新闻博客网站。网站兼具有博客自主性与媒体公共性，通过“分布式”的新闻发掘方式和以WEB2.0为基础的社会化新闻交流模式而独树一帜。通过对赫芬顿邮报的报道内容进行分析，可以发现其在聚合网络社群，推动公共交流等方面的积极作用。）
――――――――――――――――――――――――――
AndrewCiccone 08:25 PM on 4/19/2011 114 Fans
Follow China has been wagging an economic war with the western world since the Nixon Administration. Regan smashed The Berlin Wall fell, The Russian Republic is no more. China is embracing capitalism . Not really. Russia has tactfully parked their tanks a stones throw from Iraq. The Chinese are building and manufactur ing products and services like crazy. Thankfully China has no interest in the rest of the world, the Great Wall still keeps the west out.
自从尼克松时代以来，中国与西方国家的经济战争一直持续着。里根粉碎了柏林墙,俄罗斯联邦一去不复返。中国开始进行资本主义。事实上并非如此。俄罗斯巧妙地把矛头指向伊朗。中国开始疯狂地开始建设，制造产品，提供服务。令人欣慰的是,中国对其它国家没有兴趣,长城依然将西方人阻挡在外。
―――――――――――――――――――――――
HUFFPOST BLOGGER
Fred Teng 09:57 PM on 4/19/2011 130 Fans
Follow Andrew, It was Kissinger and Nixon wanted to open China. Why, for two reasons, one to balance out USSR, the other is trade. Actually it has been a win-win situation for both nations. During the earlier years, the U.S. was actually selling more to China. Why the recent down falls, because American consumers want cheaper prices, and higher wages, so American companies go to developing nations to produce the product to sell to American consumers. When American consumers run out of money the government cut its own tax revenue and borrow from other countries to keep up its own economy.
You are right, China has no interest in rest of the world, because it wants to take of of its own people first.
回复 Andrew,是基辛格和尼克松想要打开中国市场。为什么,两个原因,一个为了制抵苏联,另一种是贸易。实际上对两国来说都是一个双赢的政策。早期,美国实际上是更多的出口中国。为什么近来的情况却相反呢？因为美国的消费者希望更低的价格，更高的薪水, 所以美国的公司到发展中国家生产产品卖给美国消费者。当美国消费者的钱花光了,政府就减少税收，并向其他国家借款来保持自己的经济不滑坡。
你说的是对的,中国对世界其他国家没有兴趣,因为中国是把自己的人民放在首位。
――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Dknight99 15 hours ago (4:35 PM) 17 Fans
I would disagree that China has no interest in the rest of the world.
China has invested heavily in Africa and is pouring capital into the continent, and attempting to re create a win-win situation between China and Africa through trade. China also has trade deals with Asean counties and in South America. I remember reading about China's interest in creating a fast rail connecting China to Europe. So I would say China is very interested in the world but in securing resources and promoting global trade.
我不支持中国对世界上其它国家没有兴趣的观点。中国有大量投资在非洲,往欧洲大陆注入大量资金 ,试图通过中非之间的贸易再创一个双赢的局面。中国与东南亚国家和南美之间也有贸易往来。我记得有看到过报道，中国有意向在中国和欧洲之间建立高速铁路。所以我认为, 中国对世界是很感兴趣, 目的在于在获取资源,推动全球贸易。
―――――――――――――――――――――――――――
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Yeuk Moy 18 hours ago (1:48 PM) 15 Fans
There is an asian concept of "The Way". You must seek the "The Way" to attain your goals. Bruce Lee tried (with varying success) to inform the general public of "The Way" with respect to martial arts. Many, who do not have a concept of "The Way", think of it as the one way of thinking that allows trenscendence, or the one martial arts technique that will make you invincible , etc. In actuality, seeking "The Way" means seeking "what works". It is a variation on the journey vs the destination.
China has been seeking "The Way". Communism has brought them this far.
They now know that Communism can take them no further. They seek another path and sees Capitalism and Democracy as potential paths. What makes them different than others who have failed in the transition is that they are purposely taking a slow and steady pace. Too often, it is the rate of change that does the most damage, rather than the change itself (i.e. It isn't the falling frome a skyscraper that kills you, it is the sudden stop at the end).
有一种亚洲精神“道”。你必须寻求“道路”来实现自己的目标。李小龙试图（获得过不同的成功）通过军事艺术向公众传播武术之“道”。 没有任何一个概念可以准确的描述出“道”，它是一种精神，让你不断的追求进步，或一个武功招式，让你立于不败之地，等等。在现实生活中，追求“道”其实就是追求“方法”。这是通往成功之路的艰巨过程。
中国一直在寻求“道路”，共产主义带偏了路。现在他们知道共产主义不能再带领他们前进。他们开始寻找另一条出路，并将资本主义和民主做为潜在途径。使他们不同于其他人的转型失败，是他们开辟了稳步前进的步伐。急功近利,转型的速度太快,这样会导致更严重的损失,而不是在于改变（即：并不是从摩天大楼上坠落让你丧命，而是在要到终点时忽然停止才导致丧命。）
――――――――――――――――――――――――――
HUFFPOST BLOGGER
Fred Teng 15 minutes ago (7:42 AM) 130 Fans
Follow Yeuk, I love what you have said "Too often, it is the rate of change that does the most damage, rather than the change itself (i.e. It isn't the falling frome a skyscraper that kills you, it is the sudden stop at the end). " I might use that sometimes. Long live The Way :-)
回复 Yeuk，我非常喜爱你说的那句“急功近利,转型的速度太快,这样会导致更严重的损失,而不是在于改变（即：并不是从摩天大楼上坠落让你丧命，而是在要到终点时忽然停止才导致丧命。”
―――――――――――――――――――――――
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Richard Pearce 05:41 PM on 4/19/2011 447 Fans
The writer has ignored or overlooked two essential points about China.
The first is that China is the definition of evil. (After all, the size of its economy, the size of its population , its possession of nuclear weapons, and its form of government allows it to refuse to knuckle under to the US and remain immune to the economic, military, or social pressures the US is used to using to make a country at least bend to it. That makes it evil)
The second is that China is the definition of a threat to the US.
(After all, it is going to want to secure for itself, by either 'destabali sing' government s that refuse to allow it to have those resources on terms favourable to China, or directly overthrowing them.
It is also going to use its economic and military might to pressure other nations into declaring those actions a good thing for the world)
作者忽视甚至是过分强调了关于中国的下面两个基本点。
第一种是中国是邪恶的。(毕竟,其经济规模的大小,人口总数, 核武器资源。中国政府允许其拒绝屈服于美国、制抵美国惯用的使得一个国家屈服于它的方法，使得本国经济、军事、社会压力不受影响。这使得中国邪恶。）
第二,中国被认为是美国的威胁。(要么通过直接推翻那些反对中国政府拥有这些有利于中国的资源的国家，要么直接推翻他们，以保护中国的安全。它也可以用经济和军事力量来迫使其他国家承认，这些行动是有利于世界发展的。）
―――――――――――――――――――――――――――
HUFFPOST BLOGGER
Fred Teng 10:00 PM on 4/19/2011 130 Fans
Follow Richard, it is easy to call other countries "evil" but some people in those other countries are calling us the same names. The point is to better understand each other and build trust. This is no different than from one neighbor to another. It will take time.
回复 Richard, 将其他国家定义为“邪恶”是很容易的, 但那些国家的人也会同样地认为我们是邪恶的。问题在于更好地了解对方,相互信任。这跟从一个邻居到另一个的道理是一样
的，是需要时间的。
―――――――――――――――――――――――――――
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Richard Pearce 21 hours ago (10:33 AM) 447 Fans
Thought I'd laid the sarcasm on heavily enough to come through the limitation s of print.
I think in future I will start using a wink at the beginning and end of
sarcastic comments and hope the convention catches on.
我以为我已经用有限的字眼，把讽刺意味说得很明白了。我想，以后，我会在开始时使个眼色，标上“此乃讽刺”，希望别人能明白
――――――――――――――――――――――――――――
DAE 04:27 PM on 4/19/2011 263 Fans
Whenever a comprehensive article that attempts to put China in a
proper and reasonable perspective is published few people comment.
Could it be that they realize that their biased views don't stand up
under scrutiny?
当一篇分析全面，试图将中国定位得当，观点透彻的文章，人们的评论却很少。 是不是因为他们意识到，他们的观点在没有被审查通过之前并不会得到支持？
链接http://www.ltaaa.com/wtfy/1889.html
The People's Republic of China recently released its 2011 White Paper on National Defense. As a result, there were a lot of discussions on the impact of the rise of China's military power and the perception of its threat to United States interest. It is interesting to observe that there is a lack of comparisons of the military capacity between these two countries. It will be helpful to take a look at China and the United States military budgets and see how much each side has devoted to defend its land, protect its people, and ensure no disruption to its economy.
中华人民共和国最近发布的2011年的国防白皮书。其结果是,出现了很多讨论，内容是关于中国崛起的军事力量的影响，以及威胁到美国利益的看法。很有趣地发现到，对这两个国家，却缺乏对他们的军事能力的对比分析。看看中美军事预算以及各方投入多少到国防中，来守卫他们的领土、人民，并保证对自己的经济不会造成破坏，这将会很有益处。
中国军事预算是915亿美元，美国是6638亿美元；
中国领土9,596,960平方公里，美国领土9,629,091平方公里；
中国军队平均花费9,534美元保护一平方公里领土，而美国是68,936美元；
中国花费平均70美元保护一个公民，而美国是2,119美元；
中国使用1.4%的GDP在军事上，美国使用4.7%；
中国军队有2,285,000，美国军队有1,580,255；
中国一个士兵保护585个中国公民，美国一个士兵保护198个美国公民；
中国每个士兵花40,043美元，美国花420,058美元;
以下是评论：
Vernondelray 13 hours ago (6:35 PM) 24 Fans
Thank you for the article. I have always had an ambiguous opinion of China based in ignorance. However, what totally leaps off the page for me are the statistics regarding U.S. military spending. Given America's current economic situation (massive debt), I do not see how this military spending can in any context be considered sustainable, nor is it necessary (in my opinion). Perhaps we wield our influence and might too freely. Almost every state in our country is so cash starved they are gutting education spending and social programs, the federal government is being pushed politically to follow suit, all the while the military budget, which is far greater than education and social programs combined, is apparently politically untouchable. This cannot be sustained for much longer. We need an educated generation to follow this one (which could be viewed as massively uneducated based on pop culture), lest we all risk our future being handled by a generation of dullards.
谢谢你的文章。由于对中国不了解，在对中国的问题上，我的看法总是很模糊。
然而，关于美国的军事开支统计数据，让我忍不住想说点什么。考虑到美国目前的经济形势，我不明白这些军事开支怎么可能支撑得起，也不认为有什么必要（个人的意见）。也许我们太随意展现自己的影响力。
在我们国家几乎每个州都是如此的资金匮乏，他们摧毁了教育支出和社会福利项目,
联邦政府也正被迫在政策上跟风，一直来的军事预算,远超于教育和社会项目加起来的总和,显然，政策上，是不可以动的。
这不可能持续太长时间，我们需要受过教育的一代跟进（现在的这些人，都是些可以看作是大量没受教育的，只会追求流行文化的人），以免我们大家冒着风险，把我们的未来交给愚蠢的一代人来指挥。
―――――――――――――――――――――
HUFFPOST BLOGGER
Fred Teng 19 minutes ago (7:38 AM) 130 Fans
Follow Vernondelr ay, you have touched a point which I often made.
Education is America investment in itself, building freeways and internet freeways (by freeways I do mean FREE) is an investment in our infrastructure. But unfortunat ely, Congress and the White House look at them as spending. Together we have to change the mind set of our politicians.
回复Vernondelray，你谈到了我经常提出的一点。教育是对美国自身的投资，建设高速公路以及互联网高速路（对高速公路，我意思确实是说免费）。
是投资于我们的基础建设。但不幸的是,国会和白宫把它们看成消费。我们必须合力改变我们政客的想法。
――――――――――――――――――――――――
Howardxue 16 hours ago (4:05 PM) 0 Fans
I feel amused everytime when some hawkishs called China's military modernization and navy and air force surfing near their coastline "assertive ", "aggressive" or "bullying" , while US keep sending swarms of jet fighters, aircraft carriers, and spy ships thousands of miles away from US homeland, to China's door step, to hold lots of military exercises.
I can remember that during the WW2 the Japanese army used to accusing resisting Chinese army "aggressive". According to the Japanese war criminals' theory during WW2, the Chinese army should give up to avoid more casualties whenever they are attacked by Japan, otherwise they will be labelled "aggressive" and should be punished and held responsible for the casualty of civilants killed by the always-rig ht Japanese Royal Army.
It is China, not any other country, that experience d the "century of humiliation", when the country was too weak to protect itself from foreigners using their gunships to assert their wills and loot treasures and resources. China has learned the history lesson in the hardest way, that it has to build enough defence to avoid repeating the "century of humiliation". Thank you Mr. Teng for your informativ eanalysis and strong messges. I pray for more understanding between the two people of US and China. May peace triumph.
每当我看到一些鹰派主张中国的现代化军事，海军、空军到其海岸线附近做“炫耀”、“挑衅”或“欺负”的运动就觉得好笑。然而美国人不断地往千里迢迢之外的中国地界输送大量喷气式战斗机,航空母舰,间谍船, 不断地进行军事演习。
我记得二战时日本军队曾经指责中国军队的“侵略性”。据二战期间的日本战犯的说法，中国军队应该停止制造更多的伤亡，即使是中国人被日本人攻击的时候，否则中国人就要被永远是正确的“日本皇军”冠“侵略性”，并承担日本人民伤亡的责任。
当一个国家太过软弱而无力保护自己免受外国人侵略，让外国人使用自己本国的炮舰达到抢劫财富和掠夺资源的目的。这就是中国，没有其他任何国家，经历过这样的“百年屈辱”。中国从历史中学到教训，这是一个艰难的过程。这使得中国不得不建立得当的防御,以避免重复过去的“百年屈辱”。
谢谢Teng先生您的精彩分析及强大的资讯。我希望美国和中国两国人民能有更多的互相了解。愿和平永存。
―――――――――――――――――――――――――
HUFFPOST BLOGGER
Fred Teng 17 minutes ago (7:40 AM) 130 Fans
Follow Howardxue, apparently you have been studying China for a while.
you too should write your opinion on blogs such as the Huffington Post
回复Howardxue, 显然你一直在研究中国: 你也应写出您的意见发到博客上，如赫芬顿邮报。
（编者译：赫芬顿邮报（The Huffington Post）是美国当今最具影响力新闻博客网站。网站兼具有博客自主性与媒体公共性，通过“分布式”的新闻发掘方式和以WEB2.0为基础的社会化新闻交流模式而独树一帜。通过对赫芬顿邮报的报道内容进行分析，可以发现其在聚合网络社群，推动公共交流等方面的积极作用。）
――――――――――――――――――――――――――
AndrewCiccone 08:25 PM on 4/19/2011 114 Fans
Follow China has been wagging an economic war with the western world since the Nixon Administration. Regan smashed The Berlin Wall fell, The Russian Republic is no more. China is embracing capitalism . Not really. Russia has tactfully parked their tanks a stones throw from Iraq. The Chinese are building and manufactur ing products and services like crazy. Thankfully China has no interest in the rest of the world, the Great Wall still keeps the west out.
自从尼克松时代以来，中国与西方国家的经济战争一直持续着。里根粉碎了柏林墙,俄罗斯联邦一去不复返。中国开始进行资本主义。事实上并非如此。俄罗斯巧妙地把矛头指向伊朗。中国开始疯狂地开始建设，制造产品，提供服务。令人欣慰的是,中国对其它国家没有兴趣,长城依然将西方人阻挡在外。
―――――――――――――――――――――――
HUFFPOST BLOGGER
Fred Teng 09:57 PM on 4/19/2011 130 Fans
Follow Andrew, It was Kissinger and Nixon wanted to open China. Why, for two reasons, one to balance out USSR, the other is trade. Actually it has been a win-win situation for both nations. During the earlier years, the U.S. was actually selling more to China. Why the recent down falls, because American consumers want cheaper prices, and higher wages, so American companies go to developing nations to produce the product to sell to American consumers. When American consumers run out of money the government cut its own tax revenue and borrow from other countries to keep up its own economy.
You are right, China has no interest in rest of the world, because it wants to take of of its own people first.
回复 Andrew,是基辛格和尼克松想要打开中国市场。为什么,两个原因,一个为了制抵苏联,另一种是贸易。实际上对两国来说都是一个双赢的政策。早期,美国实际上是更多的出口中国。为什么近来的情况却相反呢？因为美国的消费者希望更低的价格，更高的薪水, 所以美国的公司到发展中国家生产产品卖给美国消费者。当美国消费者的钱花光了,政府就减少税收，并向其他国家借款来保持自己的经济不滑坡。
你说的是对的,中国对世界其他国家没有兴趣,因为中国是把自己的人民放在首位。
――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Dknight99 15 hours ago (4:35 PM) 17 Fans
I would disagree that China has no interest in the rest of the world.
China has invested heavily in Africa and is pouring capital into the continent, and attempting to re create a win-win situation between China and Africa through trade. China also has trade deals with Asean counties and in South America. I remember reading about China's interest in creating a fast rail connecting China to Europe. So I would say China is very interested in the world but in securing resources and promoting global trade.
我不支持中国对世界上其它国家没有兴趣的观点。中国有大量投资在非洲,往欧洲大陆注入大量资金 ,试图通过中非之间的贸易再创一个双赢的局面。中国与东南亚国家和南美之间也有贸易往来。我记得有看到过报道，中国有意向在中国和欧洲之间建立高速铁路。所以我认为, 中国对世界是很感兴趣, 目的在于在获取资源,推动全球贸易。
―――――――――――――――――――――――――――
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Yeuk Moy 18 hours ago (1:48 PM) 15 Fans
There is an asian concept of "The Way". You must seek the "The Way" to attain your goals. Bruce Lee tried (with varying success) to inform the general public of "The Way" with respect to martial arts. Many, who do not have a concept of "The Way", think of it as the one way of thinking that allows trenscendence, or the one martial arts technique that will make you invincible , etc. In actuality, seeking "The Way" means seeking "what works". It is a variation on the journey vs the destination.
China has been seeking "The Way". Communism has brought them this far.
They now know that Communism can take them no further. They seek another path and sees Capitalism and Democracy as potential paths. What makes them different than others who have failed in the transition is that they are purposely taking a slow and steady pace. Too often, it is the rate of change that does the most damage, rather than the change itself (i.e. It isn't the falling frome a skyscraper that kills you, it is the sudden stop at the end).
有一种亚洲精神“道”。你必须寻求“道路”来实现自己的目标。李小龙试图（获得过不同的成功）通过军事艺术向公众传播武术之“道”。 没有任何一个概念可以准确的描述出“道”，它是一种精神，让你不断的追求进步，或一个武功招式，让你立于不败之地，等等。在现实生活中，追求“道”其实就是追求“方法”。这是通往成功之路的艰巨过程。
中国一直在寻求“道路”，共产主义带偏了路。现在他们知道共产主义不能再带领他们前进。他们开始寻找另一条出路，并将资本主义和民主做为潜在途径。使他们不同于其他人的转型失败，是他们开辟了稳步前进的步伐。急功近利,转型的速度太快,这样会导致更严重的损失,而不是在于改变（即：并不是从摩天大楼上坠落让你丧命，而是在要到终点时忽然停止才导致丧命。）
――――――――――――――――――――――――――
HUFFPOST BLOGGER
Fred Teng 15 minutes ago (7:42 AM) 130 Fans
Follow Yeuk, I love what you have said "Too often, it is the rate of change that does the most damage, rather than the change itself (i.e. It isn't the falling frome a skyscraper that kills you, it is the sudden stop at the end). " I might use that sometimes. Long live The Way :-)
回复 Yeuk，我非常喜爱你说的那句“急功近利,转型的速度太快,这样会导致更严重的损失,而不是在于改变（即：并不是从摩天大楼上坠落让你丧命，而是在要到终点时忽然停止才导致丧命。”
―――――――――――――――――――――――
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Richard Pearce 05:41 PM on 4/19/2011 447 Fans
The writer has ignored or overlooked two essential points about China.
The first is that China is the definition of evil. (After all, the size of its economy, the size of its population , its possession of nuclear weapons, and its form of government allows it to refuse to knuckle under to the US and remain immune to the economic, military, or social pressures the US is used to using to make a country at least bend to it. That makes it evil)
The second is that China is the definition of a threat to the US.
(After all, it is going to want to secure for itself, by either 'destabali sing' government s that refuse to allow it to have those resources on terms favourable to China, or directly overthrowing them.
It is also going to use its economic and military might to pressure other nations into declaring those actions a good thing for the world)
作者忽视甚至是过分强调了关于中国的下面两个基本点。
第一种是中国是邪恶的。(毕竟,其经济规模的大小,人口总数, 核武器资源。中国政府允许其拒绝屈服于美国、制抵美国惯用的使得一个国家屈服于它的方法，使得本国经济、军事、社会压力不受影响。这使得中国邪恶。）
第二,中国被认为是美国的威胁。(要么通过直接推翻那些反对中国政府拥有这些有利于中国的资源的国家，要么直接推翻他们，以保护中国的安全。它也可以用经济和军事力量来迫使其他国家承认，这些行动是有利于世界发展的。）
―――――――――――――――――――――――――――
HUFFPOST BLOGGER
Fred Teng 10:00 PM on 4/19/2011 130 Fans
Follow Richard, it is easy to call other countries "evil" but some people in those other countries are calling us the same names. The point is to better understand each other and build trust. This is no different than from one neighbor to another. It will take time.
回复 Richard, 将其他国家定义为“邪恶”是很容易的, 但那些国家的人也会同样地认为我们是邪恶的。问题在于更好地了解对方,相互信任。这跟从一个邻居到另一个的道理是一样
的，是需要时间的。
―――――――――――――――――――――――――――
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Richard Pearce 21 hours ago (10:33 AM) 447 Fans
Thought I'd laid the sarcasm on heavily enough to come through the limitation s of print.
I think in future I will start using a wink at the beginning and end of
sarcastic comments and hope the convention catches on.
我以为我已经用有限的字眼，把讽刺意味说得很明白了。我想，以后，我会在开始时使个眼色，标上“此乃讽刺”，希望别人能明白
――――――――――――――――――――――――――――
DAE 04:27 PM on 4/19/2011 263 Fans
Whenever a comprehensive article that attempts to put China in a
proper and reasonable perspective is published few people comment.
Could it be that they realize that their biased views don't stand up
under scrutiny?
当一篇分析全面，试图将中国定位得当，观点透彻的文章，人们的评论却很少。 是不是因为他们意识到，他们的观点在没有被审查通过之前并不会得到支持？
链接http://www.ltaaa.com/wtfy/1889.html
主帖：
The People's Republic of China recently released its 2011 White Paper on National Defense. As a result, there were a lot of discussions on the impact of the rise of China's military power and the perception of its threat to United States interest. It is interesting to observe that there is a lack of comparisons of the military capacity between these two countries. It will be helpful to take a look at China and the United States military budgets and see how much each side has devoted to defend its land, protect its people, and ensure no disruption to its economy.
中华人民共和国最近发布的2011年的国防白皮书。其结果是,出现了很多讨论，内容是关于中国崛起的军事力量的影响，以及威胁到美国利益的看法。很有趣地发现到，对这两个国家，却缺乏对他们的军事能力的对比分析。看看中美军事预算以及各方投入多少到国防中，来守卫他们的领土、人民，并保证对自己的经济不会造成破坏，这将会很有益处。
中国军事预算是915亿美元，美国是6638亿美元；
中国领土9,596,960平方公里，美国领土9,629,091平方公里；
中国军队平均花费9,534美元保护一平方公里领土，而美国是68,936美元；
中国花费平均70美元保护一个公民，而美国是2,119美元；
中国使用1.4%的GDP在军事上，美国使用4.7%；
中国军队有2,285,000，美国军队有1,580,255；
中国一个士兵保护585个中国公民，美国一个士兵保护198个美国公民；
中国每个士兵花40,043美元，美国花420,058美元;
以下是评论：
Vernondelray 13 hours ago (6:35 PM) 24 Fans
Thank you for the article. I have always had an ambiguous opinion of China based in ignorance. However, what totally leaps off the page for me are the statistics regarding U.S. military spending. Given America's current economic situation (massive debt), I do not see how this military spending can in any context be considered sustainable, nor is it necessary (in my opinion). Perhaps we wield our influence and might too freely. Almost every state in our country is so cash starved they are gutting education spending and social programs, the federal government is being pushed politically to follow suit, all the while the military budget, which is far greater than education and social programs combined, is apparently politically untouchable. This cannot be sustained for much longer. We need an educated generation to follow this one (which could be viewed as massively uneducated based on pop culture), lest we all risk our future being handled by a generation of dullards.
谢谢你的文章。由于对中国不了解，在对中国的问题上，我的看法总是很模糊。
然而，关于美国的军事开支统计数据，让我忍不住想说点什么。考虑到美国目前的经济形势，我不明白这些军事开支怎么可能支撑得起，也不认为有什么必要（个人的意见）。也许我们太随意展现自己的影响力。
在我们国家几乎每个州都是如此的资金匮乏，他们摧毁了教育支出和社会福利项目,
联邦政府也正被迫在政策上跟风，一直来的军事预算,远超于教育和社会项目加起来的总和,显然，政策上，是不可以动的。
这不可能持续太长时间，我们需要受过教育的一代跟进（现在的这些人，都是些可以看作是大量没受教育的，只会追求流行文化的人），以免我们大家冒着风险，把我们的未来交给愚蠢的一代人来指挥。
―――――――――――――――――――――
HUFFPOST BLOGGER
Fred Teng 19 minutes ago (7:38 AM) 130 Fans
Follow Vernondelr ay, you have touched a point which I often made.
Education is America investment in itself, building freeways and internet freeways (by freeways I do mean FREE) is an investment in our infrastructure. But unfortunat ely, Congress and the White House look at them as spending. Together we have to change the mind set of our politicians.
回复Vernondelray，你谈到了我经常提出的一点。教育是对美国自身的投资，建设高速公路以及互联网高速路（对高速公路，我意思确实是说免费）。
是投资于我们的基础建设。但不幸的是,国会和白宫把它们看成消费。我们必须合力改变我们政客的想法。
――――――――――――――――――――――――
Howardxue 16 hours ago (4:05 PM) 0 Fans
I feel amused everytime when some hawkishs called China's military modernization and navy and air force surfing near their coastline "assertive ", "aggressive" or "bullying" , while US keep sending swarms of jet fighters, aircraft carriers, and spy ships thousands of miles away from US homeland, to China's door step, to hold lots of military exercises.
I can remember that during the WW2 the Japanese army used to accusing resisting Chinese army "aggressive". According to the Japanese war criminals' theory during WW2, the Chinese army should give up to avoid more casualties whenever they are attacked by Japan, otherwise they will be labelled "aggressive" and should be punished and held responsible for the casualty of civilants killed by the always-rig ht Japanese Royal Army.
It is China, not any other country, that experience d the "century of humiliation", when the country was too weak to protect itself from foreigners using their gunships to assert their wills and loot treasures and resources. China has learned the history lesson in the hardest way, that it has to build enough defence to avoid repeating the "century of humiliation". Thank you Mr. Teng for your informativ eanalysis and strong messges. I pray for more understanding between the two people of US and China. May peace triumph.
每当我看到一些鹰派主张中国的现代化军事，海军、空军到其海岸线附近做“炫耀”、“挑衅”或“欺负”的运动就觉得好笑。然而美国人不断地往千里迢迢之外的中国地界输送大量喷气式战斗机,航空母舰,间谍船, 不断地进行军事演习。
我记得二战时日本军队曾经指责中国军队的“侵略性”。据二战期间的日本战犯的说法，中国军队应该停止制造更多的伤亡，即使是中国人被日本人攻击的时候，否则中国人就要被永远是正确的“日本皇军”冠“侵略性”，并承担日本人民伤亡的责任。
当一个国家太过软弱而无力保护自己免受外国人侵略，让外国人使用自己本国的炮舰达到抢劫财富和掠夺资源的目的。这就是中国，没有其他任何国家，经历过这样的“百年屈辱”。中国从历史中学到教训，这是一个艰难的过程。这使得中国不得不建立得当的防御,以避免重复过去的“百年屈辱”。
谢谢Teng先生您的精彩分析及强大的资讯。我希望美国和中国两国人民能有更多的互相了解。愿和平永存。
―――――――――――――――――――――――――
HUFFPOST BLOGGER
Fred Teng 17 minutes ago (7:40 AM) 130 Fans
Follow Howardxue, apparently you have been studying China for a while.
you too should write your opinion on blogs such as the Huffington Post
回复Howardxue, 显然你一直在研究中国: 你也应写出您的意见发到博客上，如赫芬顿邮报。
（编者译：赫芬顿邮报（The Huffington Post）是美国当今最具影响力新闻博客网站。网站兼具有博客自主性与媒体公共性，通过“分布式”的新闻发掘方式和以WEB2.0为基础的社会化新闻交流模式而独树一帜。通过对赫芬顿邮报的报道内容进行分析，可以发现其在聚合网络社群，推动公共交流等方面的积极作用。）
――――――――――――――――――――――――――
AndrewCiccone 08:25 PM on 4/19/2011 114 Fans
Follow China has been wagging an economic war with the western world since the Nixon Administration. Regan smashed The Berlin Wall fell, The Russian Republic is no more. China is embracing capitalism . Not really. Russia has tactfully parked their tanks a stones throw from Iraq. The Chinese are building and manufactur ing products and services like crazy. Thankfully China has no interest in the rest of the world, the Great Wall still keeps the west out.
自从尼克松时代以来，中国与西方国家的经济战争一直持续着。里根粉碎了柏林墙,俄罗斯联邦一去不复返。中国开始进行资本主义。事实上并非如此。俄罗斯巧妙地把矛头指向伊朗。中国开始疯狂地开始建设，制造产品，提供服务。令人欣慰的是,中国对其它国家没有兴趣,长城依然将西方人阻挡在外。
―――――――――――――――――――――――
HUFFPOST BLOGGER
Fred Teng 09:57 PM on 4/19/2011 130 Fans
Follow Andrew, It was Kissinger and Nixon wanted to open China. Why, for two reasons, one to balance out USSR, the other is trade. Actually it has been a win-win situation for both nations. During the earlier years, the U.S. was actually selling more to China. Why the recent down falls, because American consumers want cheaper prices, and higher wages, so American companies go to developing nations to produce the product to sell to American consumers. When American consumers run out of money the government cut its own tax revenue and borrow from other countries to keep up its own economy.
You are right, China has no interest in rest of the world, because it wants to take of of its own people first.
回复 Andrew,是基辛格和尼克松想要打开中国市场。为什么,两个原因,一个为了制抵苏联,另一种是贸易。实际上对两国来说都是一个双赢的政策。早期,美国实际上是更多的出口中国。为什么近来的情况却相反呢？因为美国的消费者希望更低的价格，更高的薪水, 所以美国的公司到发展中国家生产产品卖给美国消费者。当美国消费者的钱花光了,政府就减少税收，并向其他国家借款来保持自己的经济不滑坡。
你说的是对的,中国对世界其他国家没有兴趣,因为中国是把自己的人民放在首位。
――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Dknight99 15 hours ago (4:35 PM) 17 Fans
I would disagree that China has no interest in the rest of the world.
China has invested heavily in Africa and is pouring capital into the continent, and attempting to re create a win-win situation between China and Africa through trade. China also has trade deals with Asean counties and in South America. I remember reading about China's interest in creating a fast rail connecting China to Europe. So I would say China is very interested in the world but in securing resources and promoting global trade.
我不支持中国对世界上其它国家没有兴趣的观点。中国有大量投资在非洲,往欧洲大陆注入大量资金 ,试图通过中非之间的贸易再创一个双赢的局面。中国与东南亚国家和南美之间也有贸易往来。我记得有看到过报道，中国有意向在中国和欧洲之间建立高速铁路。所以我认为, 中国对世界是很感兴趣, 目的在于在获取资源,推动全球贸易。
―――――――――――――――――――――――――――
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Yeuk Moy 18 hours ago (1:48 PM) 15 Fans
There is an asian concept of "The Way". You must seek the "The Way" to attain your goals. Bruce Lee tried (with varying success) to inform the general public of "The Way" with respect to martial arts. Many, who do not have a concept of "The Way", think of it as the one way of thinking that allows trenscendence, or the one martial arts technique that will make you invincible , etc. In actuality, seeking "The Way" means seeking "what works". It is a variation on the journey vs the destination.
China has been seeking "The Way". Communism has brought them this far.
They now know that Communism can take them no further. They seek another path and sees Capitalism and Democracy as potential paths. What makes them different than others who have failed in the transition is that they are purposely taking a slow and steady pace. Too often, it is the rate of change that does the most damage, rather than the change itself (i.e. It isn't the falling frome a skyscraper that kills you, it is the sudden stop at the end).
有一种亚洲精神“道”。你必须寻求“道路”来实现自己的目标。李小龙试图（获得过不同的成功）通过军事艺术向公众传播武术之“道”。 没有任何一个概念可以准确的描述出“道”，它是一种精神，让你不断的追求进步，或一个武功招式，让你立于不败之地，等等。在现实生活中，追求“道”其实就是追求“方法”。这是通往成功之路的艰巨过程。
中国一直在寻求“道路”，共产主义带偏了路。现在他们知道共产主义不能再带领他们前进。他们开始寻找另一条出路，并将资本主义和民主做为潜在途径。使他们不同于其他人的转型失败，是他们开辟了稳步前进的步伐。急功近利,转型的速度太快,这样会导致更严重的损失,而不是在于改变（即：并不是从摩天大楼上坠落让你丧命，而是在要到终点时忽然停止才导致丧命。）
――――――――――――――――――――――――――
HUFFPOST BLOGGER
Fred Teng 15 minutes ago (7:42 AM) 130 Fans
Follow Yeuk, I love what you have said "Too often, it is the rate of change that does the most damage, rather than the change itself (i.e. It isn't the falling frome a skyscraper that kills you, it is the sudden stop at the end). " I might use that sometimes. Long live The Way :-)
回复 Yeuk，我非常喜爱你说的那句“急功近利,转型的速度太快,这样会导致更严重的损失,而不是在于改变（即：并不是从摩天大楼上坠落让你丧命，而是在要到终点时忽然停止才导致丧命。”
―――――――――――――――――――――――
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Richard Pearce 05:41 PM on 4/19/2011 447 Fans
The writer has ignored or overlooked two essential points about China.
The first is that China is the definition of evil. (After all, the size of its economy, the size of its population , its possession of nuclear weapons, and its form of government allows it to refuse to knuckle under to the US and remain immune to the economic, military, or social pressures the US is used to using to make a country at least bend to it. That makes it evil)
The second is that China is the definition of a threat to the US.
(After all, it is going to want to secure for itself, by either 'destabali sing' government s that refuse to allow it to have those resources on terms favourable to China, or directly overthrowing them.
It is also going to use its economic and military might to pressure other nations into declaring those actions a good thing for the world)
作者忽视甚至是过分强调了关于中国的下面两个基本点。
第一种是中国是邪恶的。(毕竟,其经济规模的大小,人口总数, 核武器资源。中国政府允许其拒绝屈服于美国、制抵美国惯用的使得一个国家屈服于它的方法，使得本国经济、军事、社会压力不受影响。这使得中国邪恶。）
第二,中国被认为是美国的威胁。(要么通过直接推翻那些反对中国政府拥有这些有利于中国的资源的国家，要么直接推翻他们，以保护中国的安全。它也可以用经济和军事力量来迫使其他国家承认，这些行动是有利于世界发展的。）
―――――――――――――――――――――――――――
HUFFPOST BLOGGER
Fred Teng 10:00 PM on 4/19/2011 130 Fans
Follow Richard, it is easy to call other countries "evil" but some people in those other countries are calling us the same names. The point is to better understand each other and build trust. This is no different than from one neighbor to another. It will take time.
回复 Richard, 将其他国家定义为“邪恶”是很容易的, 但那些国家的人也会同样地认为我们是邪恶的。问题在于更好地了解对方,相互信任。这跟从一个邻居到另一个的道理是一样
的，是需要时间的。
―――――――――――――――――――――――――――
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Richard Pearce 21 hours ago (10:33 AM) 447 Fans
Thought I'd laid the sarcasm on heavily enough to come through the limitation s of print.
I think in future I will start using a wink at the beginning and end of
sarcastic comments and hope the convention catches on.
我以为我已经用有限的字眼，把讽刺意味说得很明白了。我想，以后，我会在开始时使个眼色，标上“此乃讽刺”，希望别人能明白
――――――――――――――――――――――――――――
DAE 04:27 PM on 4/19/2011 263 Fans
Whenever a comprehensive article that attempts to put China in a
proper and reasonable perspective is published few people comment.
Could it be that they realize that their biased views don't stand up
under scrutiny?
当一篇分析全面，试图将中国定位得当，观点透彻的文章，人们的评论却很少。 是不是因为他们意识到，他们的观点在没有被审查通过之前并不会得到支持？
链接http://www.ltaaa.com/wtfy/1889.html
这些算美国中产阶级以上，受过高等教育的人的回复吗??!!
link8012 发表于 2011-9-19 19:20 ![]()
这些算美国中产阶级以上，受过高等教育的人的回复吗??!!
你觉得呢！
这些算美国中产阶级以上，受过高等教育的人的回复吗??!!
你觉得呢！
这样看似明白的糊涂蛋在阿妹利卡属非主流。真正的清醒的人必须大骂中国，不骂中国才有选票，有收视率，有销量。
回的是MD的支流！
摩天楼那个比喻讲得很精彩！
摩天楼那个比喻讲得很精彩！
真要算人均中国其实什么都不是
看来老美和我们一样也是欢乐多…
这些主要发言的是华人，一个姓薛一个姓滕。
未见高明。他们难道不知道美国一旦停止扩张，那崩溃就会来临么
未见高明。他们难道不知道美国一旦停止扩张，那崩溃就会来临么
mark一下吧 慢慢看 真长
这种人必须超度掉，因为他们是阻碍中国发展的最大威胁。
这种人必须超度掉，因为他们是阻碍中国发展的最大威胁。
用不着，本身就是非主流…而且，貌似其中两个是华人…
用不着，本身就是非主流…而且，貌似其中两个是华人…
算人均，我们哪项排名也没有国足高
没有霉菌的强大，就没有美元的强大，美帝也借不到那么多的钱来养活自己3亿基本上不生产商品的人民，所以霉菌在军费上的花费绝对是值得的，不过我们私底下知道就可以了，表面上我们是要坚决反对这种穷兵黩武的行径的
摩天楼那个比喻讲得很精彩！
算人均，我们哪项排名也没有国足高
为啥你不是二楼。。。
TG就是这点悲催啊。一上人均数就虾米了。。，
为啥你不是二楼。。。
TG就是这点悲催啊。一上人均数就虾米了。。，