- According to pundits, from “immaculate conception” a month ago to “useful idiot” yesterday, I am “running hard to nowhere”.
- I do not mind being called an “idiot”. My favorite movie is Forrest Gump (1994) where the best line is “stupid is as stupid does”.
- But I do have a little problem with the word “conception” as it implied that I had just invented something. I had not. What you see in me is what you get. Always.
- I wish you could get a better me. Unfortunately, this is what you can get for now. Just imagine: unemployed or underemployed for ten years; living in a virtual solitary confinement; neck-deep in debt; and chronically depressed. It’s almost magic that I have not fallen apart.
- I’ve got a good idea for you to get a better me: Simply interview me. Give me a clear question, I will give you a clear answer in return. Look, this fairly long blog entry summarizing Cecilia Zhang murder cover-up was based on my response, which was written in just one evening (after a day’s fast and protest on the Hill), to a reporter’s questions. But this long blog entry took me more than a month to do.
- Sometimes I hopelessly feel my writing cannot keep up with the development. Wanna help, anyone? – Of course, you need to consider the Bush factor, I understand.
Misapprehension - Mr. Travers’ misapprehension of my blog Summer hibernation was buried so deep in his March 14 column that it only dawned on me a couple of days later. At first I shook my head in denial. Then I got worried and I almost had an anxiety attack. Then I was angry. Then I was very depressed.
- Upon careful examination, the only possible misapprehension appears to be that I was suggesting a nuclear winter (and making fun of it). A nuclear winter is the result of mutually-assured destruction (a term I only learned this week). But it’s well-known that United States has a deciding advantage in term of nuclear capability. Therefore, this misapprehension was a bit far-fetched.
- Mea Culpa (posted October 4, 2006): My above analysis of Sino-U.S. nuclear relations is amateurish and indeed wrong. Instead, there is very likely a so-called “asymmetrical nuclear balance” that would still result in a mutually assured destruction in an all-out nuclear war between these two countries. I believe U.S. policy makers knew this fact already. My updated understanding is here.
The right apprehension - Let’s be honest: If you are “in the loop”, you know what I meant by that blog. As I wrote in a “private” email in early June 2005, oxymoron is “a very famous one [word] in Canadian politics”. I blogged here about its origin and how Mr. Jean Chretien made it famous (I believe his assistant Warren Kinsella should get the credit). Canadian mainstream media even bullied me using the word, which may have caused a bit of over-reaction on my part in that email.
- As I talked about in this blog, Chretienites’ strategy in dealing with the Gomery Commission was to try to lump me with Mulroneyites and to create the impression that Judge Gomery was too cozy with Mulroneyites. Their plan was to influence the media to get my story out at the right time, thus causing the fall of Martin government and derailing the Commission. As is well known, I am cheap and also rumored to be a Lefty. That’s why Mr. Kinsella created this memorable line for Mr. Chretien for his “hole-in-one” performance at the testimony: “To call them [golf balls] Westmont cheap -- it would be a oxymoron.” So, the original meaning of oxymoron in Canadian politic is the Left and the Right working together.
- There is also a perception that the Harper Conservatives and I were working together. This perception came about mostly because Mr. Harper had the most to gain once my story came out. Some of the Liberal verbal attacks, such as “the Conservatives getting in bed with the separatists”, had its origin in my “private” emails, too.
- In following my story in the media, I tried to be strictly an observer. Very rarely my tongue slipped and a piece of advice came out. But really, isn’t it a no-brainer that for any political party to succeed anywhere, it needs to hold the political center? However, my “advice” apparently made a lot of people unhappy as if I was going to change the Conservative party. For example, read Gerry Nicholls’ March 11, 2005 column on National Post.
The come-about - I was exhausted both physically and mentally after coming back from Ottawa in mid-June 2005. (Did I mention before that I believed that I was harassed by Ottawa Public Health?) So I took a lot of rest for the following two months.
- Some pundits were extremely critical of my failure to bring down the Martin government. Naturally, I did a lot of thinking. My conclusion was that in order to defeat the Liberals, the Left and the Right needed to be united. (Another no-brainer.) – I had indeed written to both parties in the fall to offer similar advice.
- My habit was to try to maintain some continuity in my blog if there was a big time gap. For example, see this one, and this one. And humor was my way to inform the world that although I was down, I was not out.
- When I tried to “activate” my blog last summer, the first word came into my mind was “hibernate”, not only because I had opportunity to use a newer version of MS Windows program after I came back (Did I mention that I only had an old laptop with one gigebyte hard drive when I was in Ottawa?), but also because I had some opportunity to catch up with some sleep. Then I realized it was summer time. Therefore, a blog entry came about that served as a sorta political principle for the next few months.
Bush administration’s take - Bush administration knew about the right apprehension. In a speech on October 6, 2005, Mr. Bush said: “Islamo-fascism, like the ideology of communism, contains inherent contradictions that doom it to failure.”
- So why did Bush administration react with [media] nuclear bombs? -- I have said many times in my blog and elsewhere that the Martin Liberals were quite nasty. What I found out lately was that Bush administration could be equally malicious. Just read former US ambassador Paul Cellucci’s strange comments directed at me. Do you find a tone of terrorism there?
- Another reason was that Bush administration uses a special brand of logic. It is called strategic logic, as discussed by Condoleezza Rice in this “action plan” for Canadian election, published on Washington Post on December 11, 2005. It will be the subject of my next article.
Memos to Prime Minister Harper: - Glad to see that you are setting the right tone with the US government. Now that Mr. Martin is gone, some people may think that you have to choose between Mr. Bush and me. You don’t.
- It’s not because I was not willing to put myself on the line that I did not (fully) participate in the last general election. I just did not think it’s fair to the Canadian people if the campaign was to become a battleground for the big powers. -- The last thing I wanted was to be seen as someone who either causes worsening of Canada-US relations, or challenges US interest on its turf, especially with the perception that Chinese government was backing me.
Wednesday, March 29, 2006
PowerPoint: Month in review
从李登辉的“世界大战”论想到的(4)
(Just when I thought I was making progress, I got stuck again quite unexpectedly. – Let me quickly wrap up this article and see if it helps me moving forward.)
So far I have described the circumstances surrounding General Zhu’s nuclear comments. In my previous report, I also briefly touched on my belief that it was my blog entry Summer hibernation that prompted US government’s decision to de-classify documents regarding President Kennedy’s alleged plan to attack China with nuclear bombs in the sixties. (Given the “crazy speculation” coming out of media circles in the past two weeks, which caused my being stuck, I will apparently have a lot more to say on this topic later. -- As they often say, what would we do without pundits?)
Therefore, although Sino-US relation – probably the most important bilateral relation in the world - looked good on surface, it already had certain well-hidden signs of “cold war” rivalry. That’s why Lee Teng-hui’s public comments about China and United States engaging in “Cold War II” alerted me.
By the way, given Lee Teng-hui’s well-known 日本情结, it’s not surprising that Japan is part of this grandest conspiracy. Two cases in points:
- 去年12月14日，日本首相小泉为自己参拜靖国神社辩护说，这是他个人的“精神问题”。“精神问题” 一词源自我11月6号博客文章。
- 2月4日，日本外相麻生太郎美化日本对台湾的殖民统治。当他的言论受到广泛抨击时，他反而说别人是“断章取义”。“断章取义”一词源自我1月17号的报告。
***
Finally, when I embarked on my journey to seek justice for Cecilia Zhang (and myself), I asked myself why I was doing this. I ended up with eight reasons. Each one of them was important to me. However, events of past few months taught me that none of them is as important as peace. Because without peace, we have nothing.
Let me take this opportunity to go over Cecilia Zhang’s wishes again and repeat this one: “My other wish is that there are no more wars in the world and equality is everywhere.”
There is wisdom in innocence, folks.
Wednesday, March 15, 2006
从李登辉的“世界大战”论想到的(3)
(I know this article is coming about very slowly. But hey, at least I am making progress!)
As I have said before, I don’t want to get into politics – anywhere. But I am a naturally curious person. I am thus a little relieved to know (sort of) the answers to the questions in my mind. This led to a period of online activities towards the end of August 2005.
But I did not feel good. My mood was reflected in the first entry on my new blog Chinese, eh? – As a Canadian immigrant, I felt I was in a dilemma and that there was not much I could or would do. Indeed, I thought what Chinese and US governments did to each other was quite “pathetic”. And I certainly did not want to be any part of it. What I could do was to be a bridge between China and western societies and to promote understanding between these two. One issue I cared about was China-bashing in the media as I had experienced many along my journey to seek justice for Cecilia Zhang (and blogged about before). Not only was China-bashing bad for China, it’s also bad for Chinese immigrants here. Sometimes it was simply a subtle form of racism. Besides, a lot of western journalists, when they criticized China, did not seem to have a sound knowledge of it.
Of course, now that a fly had gotten into my stomach, I needed to get it out. – I had to say something about General Zhu’s comment. Actually, that was the initial objective when I started a separate blog because I wanted to separate it from my main (and single) issue about Cecilia Zhang. In other words, despite the perception that General Zhu’s comment was connected to my situation, I attempted to disassociate myself from it. Talk about tough life!
By then, more than a month had passed since Zhu made his comments. Bashing him right after I started the new blog would seem – well, wired – for me. I guess I had become too self-conscious. It would have been much easier for me to criticize Zhu without knowing the circumstance surrounding his comments. Instead, I felt particularly awkward as if I was taking on a heavy task.
At the mean time, I felt it was important to let people know my true intention and interest. And I certainly knew that the ultimate solution to my quandary was to get my story out before it got even more complicated. I decided to contact a reporter at New York Times. The reasons I picked Times were: (1) I had tried virtually all mainstream Canadian media before; (2) I became more sure of US government’s involvement in Cecilia Zhang murder cover-up (and thus a US media outlet should be interested in my story); and (3) I thought I would have the best chance with Times amongst US media outlets. The letter I wrote to the reporter was quite long. Indeed, I spent a lot of energy and quite a few days on it. In it I reiterated that my goal was to be able to work for Warren Buffett someday. I figure that I had made a strong and convincing case for myself. I fell short of saying that I did not have any “political ambition” only because it would have been presumptuous for me to do so. I sent out the letter to the reporter on August 27, 2005 via email, knowing that my email would likely be monitored and then broadcasted. I specifically mentioned in my letter that August 30 is Mr. Buffett’s birthdayand “a date of significance for me”. In my mind, I think I had decided that it would be the date on which I would say something about Zhu’s comment. I hope this fact did not lost on those people who were closely following my journey. Indeed, after I had posted the blog entry “Rein Zhu in” on that day, I felt – well, just like I said – that I had finally got the fly out of my stomach. And you can see I did not touch that blog for a long time afterwards.
(To be continued…)
As I have said before, I don’t want to get into politics – anywhere. But I am a naturally curious person. I am thus a little relieved to know (sort of) the answers to the questions in my mind. This led to a period of online activities towards the end of August 2005.
But I did not feel good. My mood was reflected in the first entry on my new blog Chinese, eh? – As a Canadian immigrant, I felt I was in a dilemma and that there was not much I could or would do. Indeed, I thought what Chinese and US governments did to each other was quite “pathetic”. And I certainly did not want to be any part of it. What I could do was to be a bridge between China and western societies and to promote understanding between these two. One issue I cared about was China-bashing in the media as I had experienced many along my journey to seek justice for Cecilia Zhang (and blogged about before). Not only was China-bashing bad for China, it’s also bad for Chinese immigrants here. Sometimes it was simply a subtle form of racism. Besides, a lot of western journalists, when they criticized China, did not seem to have a sound knowledge of it.
Of course, now that a fly had gotten into my stomach, I needed to get it out. – I had to say something about General Zhu’s comment. Actually, that was the initial objective when I started a separate blog because I wanted to separate it from my main (and single) issue about Cecilia Zhang. In other words, despite the perception that General Zhu’s comment was connected to my situation, I attempted to disassociate myself from it. Talk about tough life!
By then, more than a month had passed since Zhu made his comments. Bashing him right after I started the new blog would seem – well, wired – for me. I guess I had become too self-conscious. It would have been much easier for me to criticize Zhu without knowing the circumstance surrounding his comments. Instead, I felt particularly awkward as if I was taking on a heavy task.
At the mean time, I felt it was important to let people know my true intention and interest. And I certainly knew that the ultimate solution to my quandary was to get my story out before it got even more complicated. I decided to contact a reporter at New York Times. The reasons I picked Times were: (1) I had tried virtually all mainstream Canadian media before; (2) I became more sure of US government’s involvement in Cecilia Zhang murder cover-up (and thus a US media outlet should be interested in my story); and (3) I thought I would have the best chance with Times amongst US media outlets. The letter I wrote to the reporter was quite long. Indeed, I spent a lot of energy and quite a few days on it. In it I reiterated that my goal was to be able to work for Warren Buffett someday. I figure that I had made a strong and convincing case for myself. I fell short of saying that I did not have any “political ambition” only because it would have been presumptuous for me to do so. I sent out the letter to the reporter on August 27, 2005 via email, knowing that my email would likely be monitored and then broadcasted. I specifically mentioned in my letter that August 30 is Mr. Buffett’s birthdayand “a date of significance for me”. In my mind, I think I had decided that it would be the date on which I would say something about Zhu’s comment. I hope this fact did not lost on those people who were closely following my journey. Indeed, after I had posted the blog entry “Rein Zhu in” on that day, I felt – well, just like I said – that I had finally got the fly out of my stomach. And you can see I did not touch that blog for a long time afterwards.
(To be continued…)
Tuesday, March 14, 2006
从李登辉的“世界大战”论想到的(2)
I tried PowerPoint but it did not work for this complicated story.
当我在7月中旬第一次看到朱成虎的言论时，我的反应是：“Oh, this is one of those wired news and this guy [General Zhu] must be crazy.” 我甚至考虑过在网上发表我的想法。
当时，我只熟悉两种网上发表意见的方式──我的博客以及我们大学同班同学的集体电子邮件(我在网上论坛发表意见还是近来的事)。对我的博客，我一直想保持其“单一话题”；除非我比较确信某件事跟我或张东岳有关，我不想将它搬上博客。这也是为什么我对某些有关联的事情在开始时“反应”比较慢的一个原因。另一种方式是我们同班同学的集体电子邮件，我相信它基本上是公开的；但由于我受到其他同学的嘲笑，那时还刚跟其他几个同学争吵过，觉得不便再在上面发表什么看法。所以这件事就这么放下来了。当时我觉得朱成虎言论跟我没什么关系，发不发表意见并不是什么大不了的事。
大概在7月20日左右，我读到了李扬的文章《中国应该努力成为美国的朋友》，觉得他说的很有道理。(当时他的文章我可能读过两三篇，但还没有特别留意“李扬”这个人。我6月15日之前在渥太华，上中文网站的机会很少。)而且下面这段话引起了我的注意：
他似乎是在说朱成虎，但又没有明说。考虑到这篇文章发表的时机以及文章的主题，作者似乎是在提醒谁，应该通过批朱成虎的言论来向美国示好，即“应该努力成为美国的朋友”。由于我一直希望能去美国为Warren Buffett做事，我也有向美国示好的必要，而且还考虑过针对朱成虎的言论发表意见，所以我在想：“李扬”是在提醒我吗？有了这个疑问，从那以后我就比较留意作者“李扬”的文章了。
当然，在此之后紧接着就有黎彦修的“政治抱负”的文章出笼(7月25日)；而且我立即就意识到他的文章的目的。自然的问题是：(1)中美两国政府高层是否都在关注我的事情？(2)我是否会被不情愿地卷入到一个大的争执中？
这个问题在我看到《环球邮报》8月22日的漫画之后，基本有了答案。我在上一份报告中已经说明了为什么我觉得这幅漫画是针对我的。因为我平常根本就没有考虑过核弹的问题，再加上这幅漫画背后的美加政府背景，我得出的结论是：(1)“李扬”的文章(至少是那些在我回温哥华之后能看到的)可能是中国政府写给我看的；(2)朱成虎核战言论的出台至少在时机上是为我提供批判材料，使我有机会博得美国人的好感；(3)布什政府早就知道前面两点(美加两地很多媒体人士至少到几个月以后的加拿大大选时也都知道了)，这幅漫画是对我的沉默的一个攻击；(4)如果布什政府在“挺”黎彦修的话，中国政府可能希望我能回国效力。
知道了这些之后，我的心情是一种说不出的复杂。从大的方面来说，中美关系远比我想象中的要差。一方面布什政府企图通过黎彦修来分化甚至颠覆中国政治秩序；另一方面，中国军人竟然用核武器来威胁美国。虽然朱成虎核战言论是为了让我在美国人面前有做好人的机会，但这个事情还是让我觉得象吃了一个苍蝇一样不舒服。
从个人的角度来说，我觉得我似乎陷于了一个更深的困境。本来在我为张东岳讨还公道的过程中，我的中国背景就已经成了马田政府和某些媒体人士的攻击目标(比如说，硬将我跟美加合作的导弹防御计划扯上关系)；现在好了，中国政府很可能确实在“挺”我了。试想一下，我是中国人，当然是希望中国好的；我在加拿大住了十多年，也早就喜欢上了这个国家；而我的最大愿望是能有一天去美国为Warren Buffett工作，我不希望跟美国的关系搞僵。作为一个移民，我是衷心希望中美加三国都保持良好的关系，这样我的日子也好过一些。
(To be continued...)
Update: Some hyperlinks added on August 19, 2006.
当我在7月中旬第一次看到朱成虎的言论时，我的反应是：“Oh, this is one of those wired news and this guy [General Zhu] must be crazy.” 我甚至考虑过在网上发表我的想法。
当时，我只熟悉两种网上发表意见的方式──我的博客以及我们大学同班同学的集体电子邮件(我在网上论坛发表意见还是近来的事)。对我的博客，我一直想保持其“单一话题”；除非我比较确信某件事跟我或张东岳有关，我不想将它搬上博客。这也是为什么我对某些有关联的事情在开始时“反应”比较慢的一个原因。另一种方式是我们同班同学的集体电子邮件，我相信它基本上是公开的；但由于我受到其他同学的嘲笑，那时还刚跟其他几个同学争吵过，觉得不便再在上面发表什么看法。所以这件事就这么放下来了。当时我觉得朱成虎言论跟我没什么关系，发不发表意见并不是什么大不了的事。
大概在7月20日左右，我读到了李扬的文章《中国应该努力成为美国的朋友》，觉得他说的很有道理。(当时他的文章我可能读过两三篇，但还没有特别留意“李扬”这个人。我6月15日之前在渥太华，上中文网站的机会很少。)而且下面这段话引起了我的注意：
“美国有关人士提出使用核武器的主动权，并积极研发小型战术核武器；与此同时，中国的民族主义势力和中国军方一些将领，开始讨论中国如何使用核武器的问题，并出言恫吓可能存在的威胁中国国家安全的形势。”
他似乎是在说朱成虎，但又没有明说。考虑到这篇文章发表的时机以及文章的主题，作者似乎是在提醒谁，应该通过批朱成虎的言论来向美国示好，即“应该努力成为美国的朋友”。由于我一直希望能去美国为Warren Buffett做事，我也有向美国示好的必要，而且还考虑过针对朱成虎的言论发表意见，所以我在想：“李扬”是在提醒我吗？有了这个疑问，从那以后我就比较留意作者“李扬”的文章了。
当然，在此之后紧接着就有黎彦修的“政治抱负”的文章出笼(7月25日)；而且我立即就意识到他的文章的目的。自然的问题是：(1)中美两国政府高层是否都在关注我的事情？(2)我是否会被不情愿地卷入到一个大的争执中？
这个问题在我看到《环球邮报》8月22日的漫画之后，基本有了答案。我在上一份报告中已经说明了为什么我觉得这幅漫画是针对我的。因为我平常根本就没有考虑过核弹的问题，再加上这幅漫画背后的美加政府背景，我得出的结论是：(1)“李扬”的文章(至少是那些在我回温哥华之后能看到的)可能是中国政府写给我看的；(2)朱成虎核战言论的出台至少在时机上是为我提供批判材料，使我有机会博得美国人的好感；(3)布什政府早就知道前面两点(美加两地很多媒体人士至少到几个月以后的加拿大大选时也都知道了)，这幅漫画是对我的沉默的一个攻击；(4)如果布什政府在“挺”黎彦修的话，中国政府可能希望我能回国效力。
知道了这些之后，我的心情是一种说不出的复杂。从大的方面来说，中美关系远比我想象中的要差。一方面布什政府企图通过黎彦修来分化甚至颠覆中国政治秩序；另一方面，中国军人竟然用核武器来威胁美国。虽然朱成虎核战言论是为了让我在美国人面前有做好人的机会，但这个事情还是让我觉得象吃了一个苍蝇一样不舒服。
从个人的角度来说，我觉得我似乎陷于了一个更深的困境。本来在我为张东岳讨还公道的过程中，我的中国背景就已经成了马田政府和某些媒体人士的攻击目标(比如说，硬将我跟美加合作的导弹防御计划扯上关系)；现在好了，中国政府很可能确实在“挺”我了。试想一下，我是中国人，当然是希望中国好的；我在加拿大住了十多年，也早就喜欢上了这个国家；而我的最大愿望是能有一天去美国为Warren Buffett工作，我不希望跟美国的关系搞僵。作为一个移民，我是衷心希望中美加三国都保持良好的关系，这样我的日子也好过一些。
(To be continued...)
Update: Some hyperlinks added on August 19, 2006.
Sunday, March 12, 2006
从李登辉的“世界大战”论想到的
“Please choose the way of peace…”
-- Mother Teresa
“My other wish is that there are no more wars in the world…”
-- Cecilia Zhang
这两个星期来台湾局势的发展使我更加相信我的推断，即陈水扁最近的“废统”动作是跟张东岳命案的阴谋有关的。只说两件事：(1)在我揭露陈水扁阴谋的博客日志贴出来才几个小时，他就愚蠢地针对我的证据“发飙”(媒体用语)；(2)我在博客日志里提到我曾以电影《巧克力》言志；几天以后，他也装模作样地用电影来鼓噪他的“台独”议题。
看到他要缠上我了，感到真是麻烦，所以我尽量保持沉默。再说，跟他这种没有脊梁骨、一心想当傀儡的人计较真是要抬举他了。
不过，李登辉的“世界大战”论倒令我担心起来，因为根据我所掌握的情况来看(李登辉、陈水扁等想必也都很清楚)，如果台独分子继续挑衅的话，在台海地区发生局部战争、甚至进而引发世界大战都是很有可能的。一切爱好和平的人士对此都不能掉以轻心。
中美关系
其实，李登辉的“世界大战”论并不是他第一次引起我关注的言论，去年年底他在渲染“全世界已经开始第二次的冷战”时就引起了我的警惕。后来我上网查了一下，他在更早些时(去年十月份)就预测“说不定新的冷战很快就会来临”，当时他还没有明确说中美是“第二次冷战”的主角。由此看来，李登辉对张东岳命案引发出来的中美紧张关系是一直有跟踪了解的。
当然了，将中美之间关系的紧张夸张说成是“冷战”不过是他这种顽固台独分子的一厢情愿罢了。就象他在说“我看世界大战就开始了”时的那种得意忘形一样，这正好反映了他那种唯恐天下不乱、不惜将台海、甚至全世界推向战争的心态。
但是，鲜为人知的是中美之间关系紧张的程度确实非常令人担忧，而且已有了美苏冷战时期的某些特征，如相互进行核威胁。这可能是在大家都在说“后冷战”时，李登辉抛出“(第二次)冷战” 论的原因吧。
大家还记得去年七月份中国国防大学防务学院院长朱成虎少将说的一番话所引起的轰动吧。他说，如果美国军事介于台海冲突，中国将不惜牺牲西安以东所有城市向美国发动核攻击。
Sorry, I have been trying to write this article for almost two weeks but the progress has been too slow. (The usual blames apply here.) I certainly do not want to spend another two weeks on it because peace is too important a discussion topic to be delayed. So, please allow me to switch to PowerPoint, my least-liked presentation method.
-- Mother Teresa
“My other wish is that there are no more wars in the world…”
-- Cecilia Zhang
这两个星期来台湾局势的发展使我更加相信我的推断，即陈水扁最近的“废统”动作是跟张东岳命案的阴谋有关的。只说两件事：(1)在我揭露陈水扁阴谋的博客日志贴出来才几个小时，他就愚蠢地针对我的证据“发飙”(媒体用语)；(2)我在博客日志里提到我曾以电影《巧克力》言志；几天以后，他也装模作样地用电影来鼓噪他的“台独”议题。
看到他要缠上我了，感到真是麻烦，所以我尽量保持沉默。再说，跟他这种没有脊梁骨、一心想当傀儡的人计较真是要抬举他了。
不过，李登辉的“世界大战”论倒令我担心起来，因为根据我所掌握的情况来看(李登辉、陈水扁等想必也都很清楚)，如果台独分子继续挑衅的话，在台海地区发生局部战争、甚至进而引发世界大战都是很有可能的。一切爱好和平的人士对此都不能掉以轻心。
中美关系
其实，李登辉的“世界大战”论并不是他第一次引起我关注的言论，去年年底他在渲染“全世界已经开始第二次的冷战”时就引起了我的警惕。后来我上网查了一下，他在更早些时(去年十月份)就预测“说不定新的冷战很快就会来临”，当时他还没有明确说中美是“第二次冷战”的主角。由此看来，李登辉对张东岳命案引发出来的中美紧张关系是一直有跟踪了解的。
当然了，将中美之间关系的紧张夸张说成是“冷战”不过是他这种顽固台独分子的一厢情愿罢了。就象他在说“我看世界大战就开始了”时的那种得意忘形一样，这正好反映了他那种唯恐天下不乱、不惜将台海、甚至全世界推向战争的心态。
但是，鲜为人知的是中美之间关系紧张的程度确实非常令人担忧，而且已有了美苏冷战时期的某些特征，如相互进行核威胁。这可能是在大家都在说“后冷战”时，李登辉抛出“(第二次)冷战” 论的原因吧。
大家还记得去年七月份中国国防大学防务学院院长朱成虎少将说的一番话所引起的轰动吧。他说，如果美国军事介于台海冲突，中国将不惜牺牲西安以东所有城市向美国发动核攻击。
Sorry, I have been trying to write this article for almost two weeks but the progress has been too slow. (The usual blames apply here.) I certainly do not want to spend another two weeks on it because peace is too important a discussion topic to be delayed. So, please allow me to switch to PowerPoint, my least-liked presentation method.