< [1] 2 |
原帖由 秀雲 於 2008-7-31 07:59 發表 完全同意秀雲姐的說法! 從地緣角度上來說,高麗(即朝鮮/韓國)的位置對中國太重要了, 所以毛主席才不惜一切去抗美援朝吧! 中國在韓戰的表現, 再加上毛時代發展的兩彈一星, 奠定了中國在國際間的影響力! 毛主席就亦曾提出過"破壞性創建", 例如「毀舊宇宙而得新宇宙」「天下大亂,達到天下大治」 「亂亦歷史生活之一過程,自亦有實際生活之價值」等等, 所以我同意秀雲姐 人類大同,其必須經歷的一環便是世界性的大災難。 想要文化交流和平演變那真是癡人說夢 [ 本帖最後由 peterchansuper 於 2008-7-31 12:10 編輯 ] | |
原帖由 dye 於 2008-7-31 09:47 發表 湯馬斯·佛里曼提出有麥當勞餐廳的國家都沒有與其他國家戰爭。但其已經被反駁,因為第一美國曾在1989年侵略巴拿馬(巴拿馬于70年代末已經有麥當勞餐廳),還有其後的1999年的科索沃戰爭。 http://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E9%BA%A5%E7%95%B6%E5%8B%9E [ 本帖最後由 peterchansuper 於 2008-7-31 12:19 編輯 ] | |
原帖由 dye 於 2008-7-31 09:47 發表 與其說兩個有麥當勞的國家開戰比率低, 不如說兩個有原子彈的國家開戰比率低吧! 有時我會想, 如果伊拉克真的有大殺傷力武器, 或許美伊戰爭的打不成了...... | |
| |
原帖由 dye 於 2008-7-31 09:47 發表 哈哈哈﹐又係我V飛刀爺出場喇 加拿大跟中國的社會結構不同。。。。。加拿大本身是移民城市。。。。中國本身是一個文化圈。。。移民城市需要大量吸納外來勞動人口 一個文化圈跟其他文化圈的融合過程難免有戰爭。。。。所謂民族共榮本身已經係吹水喇。。。澳洲都沒有民族共融喇。。。那些白人只不過將澳洲土著趕出城市﹐粉飾太平罷了。。。。 | |
中国的文化圈就舒服過吹水 -- 直情吹簫添 咩時候適用咩思想,係吹簫咁吹,吹到出嘢 幾時心情好出兵去滅幾個国仔,就由飛刀爺開press conference,哈哈哈又係飛刀出場,今鄭重宣佈暫時停用儒家思想,until further notice | |
原帖由 沙文 於 2008-7-31 13:49 發表 澳洲從來沒有共榮過。。。。澳洲的國慶日被當地土著稱為國殤日。。。。 | |
如果你有看過這麥當當比喻,定必知道比率甚低和沒有是兩回事。 "Thomas Friedman also warns in his book The World Is Flat that the Dell Theory should not be interpreted as a guarantee that nations who are deeply involved in global supply chains will not go to war with each other. It rather means that the governments of these nations and their citizens will have very heavy economic costs to consider as they contemplate the possibility of war. These costs include the long-term loss of the country's profitable participation in the global supply chain." | |
下次Oct 10您宣佈本刀爺出兵六條通,暫停儒家文化圈,不便之處敬請原諒啦 | |
原帖由 peterchansuper 於 2008-7-31 12:18 發表 高見 值得深究 | |
原帖由 peterchansuper 於 2008-7-31 12:18 發表 美國當年轟炸的確是避開麥當勞。。。但不會因為一個國家有麥當勞而放他一馬 | |
原帖由 dye 於 2008-7-31 11:09 發表 即便佛經裡的“轉輪聖王”,想要管理好一個國家,他也得殺人。所謂“我不入地獄誰入地獄”。雍正被凈宗十三祖印光大師吹噓成“大菩薩再來”,乃開悟之人。雍正殺了多少人?當年蒙古人欲攻日本,日本密宗開壇行“降伏法”,致使神風兩度摧毀蒙軍戰艦,死傷無數。 宗教和政治,本就不能混淆。用宗教之心談政治,只會一塌糊涂。這一點恐怕宗教底蘊深厚的古印度的名王們都做得很出色,一面信奉婆羅門教,佛教等宗教;一面征戰殺伐,欲統一天下。政治是政治,信仰是信仰,一個人連本族人的利益都保護不了還談什麽博愛? 另外,就歷史學來說,地緣因素恐怕比人為因素更能影響,造就歷史吧。一個國家僅僅局限於自保,宋朝的下場就是最好的反面例子。 我可并非鼓吹屠殺。而是看透了人的自私性和虛偽性。美國就是當今的典型。 | |
原帖由 peterchansuper 於 2008-7-31 12:03 發表 雖然我不喜歡毛,不過對於韓戰,聽老一輩人和一些教授分析過,確實如你所說,毛的決定是正確的。美國所遭遇過的對手中,毫不夸張的說,只有中國曾令他們恐懼過。(這點論調有點左憤的感覺吧~~~~) | |
小時候 我經常聽到這首歌 | |
| |
>>>>>>>>> 霉菌的罪行 who is 霉菌 ?? | |
If "屠殺幾千名日本平民" sounds great to you, is Nanking massacre wrong? What happen to the not killing doctrine in Buddhism? If even buying meat is prohibited because it induces killing, how is mass-murdering civilian to protect some unknown interest 'great'? ---------------- This is exactly the point "Why I would not want to be Chinese on the next reincarnation" talks about. Foreign scholar have a hard time understanding Chinese culture because in Chinese, the world is splitted into ideal world, and practical world. Most of the thing being said is only in ideal world, while they behave in the real world without regards to their ideal. 虛偽 is exactly the problem the Chinese authors talk about in their book. 虛偽 has been in the culture of Chinese for too long and too deep rooted. ------------- I am not sure which king in India you are talking about, but Ashoka the Great, one of the greatest Buddhist king, and also a model for later Buddhist king (such as those in Thailand), stop his invasion to neighbouring country after his conversion to Buddhism. Instead of mass-murdering, he decided to send diplomate to neighbouring empire to spread Buddism (for example, Sri Lanka) He decided to build more hospital, even for the animal instead of military academy. In fact, he converted to Buddhism after witnessing so much death from his earlier battles before living like a pacifist. (A wisedom rare in those days) These are mostly from Buddhist source! Whether people regard his politics as a failure or not, at least he is true to his ideal. In American way of saying it, "He don't f--k around with words." Even English author H.G Well calls him "the greatest kings". [ 本帖最後由 dye 於 2008-8-4 09:54 編輯 ] | |
毛主席話齋戰爭從人類私有制開始已經出現。。。所以根本無須要考慮戰爭的正義性﹐何況儒家思想在兵荒馬亂世代跟本不適用。。。 兵荒馬亂世代有咩思想適用 ,唯遊牧民族的思想---聖經可蘭經 |
< [1] 2 |