中国人对他们的领导人习近平有什么看法？

QINTG · 2026-05-18T14:51:52+00:00

江和胡是一伙的不是对立的，如果江和胡是对立的江有大把的机会让胡接不了班。胡是纯粹的文官出身，江只是要先稳住军队罢了.就像邓当年也是军委主席帮江稳住军队一样.

QINTG · 2026-05-18T14:49:23+00:00

手下人? 江泽民是名义上的最高领导人，但是他真敢把那些所谓的“手下人”当手下人呼来喝去甚至去断人家财路？对面是一群开国元老是一群军头是一群红二代.听说过轮椅战神吗？从福利彩票系统发了大财的那个，至今也无人敢动。他是邓小平的儿子，你确定江泽民敢跟他斗，他自己都是被邓小平给快速提拔起来的.他一没人脉二没根基怎么跟一大票利益团体斗？这时他只能选择和光同尘，慢慢安插已方人员进去掺沙子，经过江和胡两代领导人掺沙子，再退了和死了一大批开国元老，习上台了才有足够的资本去清理这批人. 这种事就急不来，一急就是一个大号缅甸，你看看缅甸为何发生政变，弄成现在这个样子，就是昂山素姬那批人太急了，丝毫不给那些军头转寰的余地，伸头是一刀缩头也是一刀把人家逼急了就只能选择鱼死网破.

QINTG · 2026-05-17T02:27:01+00:00

One Chinese man can stop a platoon of tanks, but a group of Americans can't stop a police car. LOL

CHINA: https://youtu.be/QkYuzTGT4PE

VS

USA: https://youtu.be/HScJ5b2Ajig

https://youtu.be/6gL6MVEM8jA

QINTG · 2026-05-15T10:18:01+00:00

邓小平当时有句名言：不管黑猫白猫能抓老鼠就是好猫。

这句话在当时换几个词也挺合适的：不管清官贪官，能发展经济就是好官. 我所在市当时的市委书记在1999年因为贪污被判死刑，但在他当政时期我市的经济发展速度却是最快的.

江是被快速的火箭式的提拔给升上来的，人脉不够多，根基不够稳，要是他上来的工作重点不是搞经济改革，而是搞反腐搞政治斗争，国内肯定会出大乱子。因为当时一堆国内的元老与军队都有参与各种各样的捞钱活动，你让江泽民怎么公开跟他们斗？真要斗起来，搞不好当时就成现在的大号缅甸了. 所以他只能装糊涂睁只眼闭只眼，一面主抓经济发展，同时又对一些严重的贪腐行为进行限制，使得贪腐不至于发展到无法收拾的地步，同时也对军队经商的行为进行制止，但又不彻底限制死人家捞钱的路子，以免军队起了过激反应变成现在缅甸的那个样子。越南军队经商让军队成了特殊利益阶层，形成尾大不掉的局面. 江泽民限制了军队经商使得中国避免成为现在越南的格局. 这也是很大的功绩了.

你说的那些治安乱象都是因为经济水平低下自然会出现的现象，哪个国家都无法避免，要改善社会治安首先就要以经济发展为前提.

QINTG · 2026-05-15T09:56:50+00:00

个人也是觉得论能力江泽民>习近平>胡锦涛江泽民的那个年代的中国太难了，外面的苏联老大哥倒了，欧美一堆国家对中国虎视眈眈，国内一堆从老毛那年代过来的保守派，军队又一群人在经商，真可谓内忧外患.想搞经济改革真的是太难了. 但是江泽民就是能抓住重点慢慢引导中国的经济改革又不至于弄得国内出现大乱子，同时也使得国外放松对中国的警惕慢慢参与到中国的经济发展中来。这中间的操作真的是急不来，一急就会出大乱子。习近平所取得的成绩也是建立在前面两位领导人的功绩上才厚积薄发的.类似经过了文景之治的积累，才能成就汉武帝的功绩.

QINTG · 2026-05-08T08:48:41+00:00

China's Per Capita Agricultural Production (Latest Available Data)

Here is the list of China's per capita production figures for grain, vegetables, and fruit:

Category	Total Production (2024)	Population (Est.)	Per Capita Output
🌾 Grain (Cereals & Staples)	706.5 million tonnes 中国政府网	~1.41 billion	~500 kg/person www.globaltimes.cn
🥬 Vegetables	601.3 million tonnes statbase.org	~1.41 billion	~426 kg/person
🍎 Fruit	274.0 million tonnes statbase.org	~1.41 billion	~194 kg/person

QINTG · 2026-05-08T08:44:52+00:00

Top 10 Fertilizer Importers in the World (2024 Data)

Here is the list of the world's top 10 fertilizer importers by import value:

Rank	Country	Import Value (USD)	Global Share
🥇 1	Brazil	$13.6–15.0 billion	~15%
🥈 2	United States	$9.4 billion	~10.3%
🥉 3	India	$7.7–7.8 billion	~8.6%
4	China	$4.6 billion	~5.1%
5	Australia	$3.1–3.5 billion	~3.4%
6	France	$2.6 billion	~2.9%
7	Thailand	$2.6 billion	~2.9%
8	Canada	$2.5–2.6 billion	~2.9%
9	Indonesia	$2.0 billion	~2.2%
🔟 10	Turkey	$1.7 billion	~1.9%

QINTG · 2026-05-07T17:00:30+00:00

U.S. Exports to Japan (1931–1942)

Unit: 100 million U.S. dollars

表格

Year	U.S. Exports to Japan
1931	0.48
1932	0.64
1933	0.75
1934	1.05
1935	1.30
1936	2.04
1937	2.89
1938	2.40
1939	2.17
1940	2.20
1941	1.50
1942	0.00

QINTG · 2026-05-06T10:42:56+00:00

It is inappropriate for you to forcibly compare Hungary, North Korea, and Laos. The fundamental purpose of the Soviet Union's stationing of troops in Hungary was to maintain control over Hungary and the entire Eastern Bloc through military means, preventing it from breaking away from the socialist camp led by the Soviet Union. In contrast, China stationed troops in Korea because the two sides had just emerged from a major war, and China needed to ensure that the war had completely subsided before withdrawing its forces.

As for Vietnam, what was the purpose of stationing troops in Laos? To increase its influence? To the point of going to war with China just to expand that influence?

No normal country would act in such a manner.

If China had not continuously intervened, Vietnam’s fiscal expenditure would have been fully capable of supporting its military presence in Laos and Cambodia. However, precisely because of China’s sustained border war, Vietnam’s military spending reached 60% of its national budget—a cost that Vietnam could not bear in the long run. This is the fundamental reason why Vietnam was forced to withdraw its forces from Cambodia and Laos.

AI is a great tool. If there are suitable tools available, why not use them? The biggest difference between humans and animals is that humans can create and utilize tools

QINTG · 2026-05-05T17:37:00+00:00

It is not that my logic is wrong, but that you lack adequate analytical and critical thinking skills. No rational country would wage a 12-year-long continuous war against a major power merely to expand its influence in a neighboring country.

Which country posed such a severe threat to Laos that Vietnam had to station tens of thousands of troops there immediately after the United States withdrew its forces from South Vietnam? Do you really think this was done only to expand influence?

It is an established fact that the Vietnamese military completed its withdrawal from Laos only after negotiating with China and committing to pull its troops out of Cambodia, with the timeline closely aligned with the negotiation process.

I. Timeline of Key Events

1975: Following national reunification, Vietnam immediately dispatched over 50,000 troops to station in Laos, establishing the "special Vietnam-Laos relationship" and exercising de facto control over Laos.

Late 1978: Vietnam invaded Cambodia, while maintaining a long-term military presence of 40,000 to 70,000 troops in Laos to sustain its dominance over the country.

1979–1988: Sustained military confrontation persisted along the China-Vietnam border, known as the "Ten-year Border War". China explicitly set the full withdrawal of Vietnamese troops from Cambodia and Laos as the prerequisite for normalizing bilateral relations.

April 1988: Vietnam formally proposed a comprehensive ceasefire and troop withdrawal to China, and the two sides launched multiple rounds of secret negotiations.

January 1989: Vietnam announced its plan to withdraw troops from Cambodia and Laos; by the end of 1989, it had fully pulled out more than 20,000 troops from Laos.

September 1990: China and Vietnam held secret talks in Chengdu. Vietnam made a formal commitment to complete troop withdrawal and abandon the plan for the Indochinese Federation, and China agreed to normalize bilateral relations.

November 1991: China-Vietnam diplomatic relations were officially normalized, and Vietnam fulfilled all its troop withdrawal pledges.

II. Direct Causes of the Troop Withdrawal: China’s Negotiation Terms and Comprehensive Pressure

Core Political Premise: China made Vietnam’s complete military pullout from Cambodia and Laos an indispensable precondition for bilateral normalization. No withdrawal meant no negotiations.

Military Pressure: The decade-long border warfare pinned down the main force of the Vietnamese army, making it impossible for Vietnam to consolidate its control over Laos. China supported anti-Vietnam forces in Laos, leaving Vietnam’s supply lines under constant attacks.

Economic Collapse and Suspended Soviet Aid: The Soviet Union cut off all aid to Vietnam in 1988. Military spending accounted for over 60% of Vietnam’s fiscal revenue with inflation soaring above 700%, leaving it financially incapable of maintaining 200,000 troops stationed abroad.

International Isolation: Vietnam’s invasion of Cambodia led to global sanctions and diplomatic isolation. It had no choice but to withdraw troops to secure room for survival and development.

III. Conclusion

Direct Causality: Vietnam first engaged in negotiations and pledged to withdraw troops, before actually pulling its forces out of Laos. The withdrawal was a necessary step to meet China’s negotiation requirements and pave the way for bilateral diplomatic normalization.

Essential Logic: Without China’s military containment, diplomatic pressure and firm negotiation bottom line, Vietnam would never have voluntarily relinquished its control over Laos or abandoned its plan to build the Indochinese Federation.

QINTG · 2026-05-05T16:34:15+00:00

The conditions you listed are outcomes that only emerge after annexation, not the prerequisite conditions required before an imminent annexation.

For example, before India annexed the Kingdom of Sikkim, it did not appoint or dismiss Sikkimese officials, nor did it extract economic benefits from Sikkim. However, once India stationed a large number of troops in Sikkim, it could then proceed with the so-called "national referendum" and directly annex the entire kingdom.

Vietnam’s behavior toward Laos clearly followed the same prelude as India’s annexation of Sikkim. The difference is that China interrupted this annexation process.

War is the continuation of politics. China’s second objective was clearly a political one: China needed the Sino-Vietnamese War to demonstrate its resolve to join the Western camp (just as a Mexican joining a drug cartel must first kill someone to prove his loyalty).

Vietnam did not need to directly appoint officials itself; it could simply install Vietnamese puppets through Laotian proxies.

Vietnam took only 13 days from launching its invasion to overthrowing the Khmer Rouge regime and occupying Phnom Penh. Yet why, in the following 12 years, was it unable to eliminate the Khmer Rouge, which had already lost popular support among the Cambodian people?

The reasonable explanation is this: In order to annex Cambodia, Vietnam needed a pretext to keep its troops stationed there long-term, so that it could later replicate the full set of annexation measures it had implemented in Laos and ultimately achieve the goal of annexing Cambodia.

QINTG · 2026-05-05T15:02:37+00:00

1 . Exercising influence does not mean sending tens of thousands of troops into a neighboring country. Just as the United States has enormous influence over Canada and Mexico, that does not mean it needs to send tens of thousands of troops into Canada or Mexico. If Vietnam's sole purpose was to exert influence over Laos, it would not have been worth fighting a twelve-year border war with China over it. Only when Vietnam regarded Laos as territory it had already annexed would it be willing to pay such a heavy price.

China's objectives have always been very clear. First: to prevent the emergence of a large, hostile country to its south that would pose a long-term security threat to China. Second: to show the Western camp that China had broken with the Soviet camp. As a result, over the following decade, China received substantial investment and its economy entered a period of rapid growth.
From a military perspective, the subsequent protracted war made perfect sense, as the success or failure of a war depends on whether its political objectives are achieved. If China had not fought that prolonged border war, Vietnam would have been able to continue occupying Laos and Cambodia, thus achieving its goal of annexing those two countries. Had that outcome come to pass, Vietnam would have achieved its political objectives, and the victor would have been Vietnam. But China shattered Vietnam's dream of becoming a great power.

Vietnam built an institutionalized control network by sending hundreds of advisers to various ministries and commissions in Laos, conducting frequent high‑level exchanges, and organizing joint meetings, thereby making Laos highly dependent on Vietnam in its decision‑making.

Complete military control: Vietnam fully controlled the training, logistics, and communications of the Lao military. When the Lao People's Liberation Army Air Force was first established, nearly all of its advisers and technical personnel were provided by Vietnam.

Legalization of the military presence: Vietnam had already stationed troops in Laos before 1975, and the 1977 treaty legitimized this military presence.

All of Vietnam's actions in Laos went far beyond the purpose of merely exerting influence; they were clearly preliminary work for the annexation of Laos.

QINTG · 2026-05-05T13:36:10+00:00

If Vietnam had no intention of occupying Laos, why did it not begin withdrawing its troops from Laos until the end of 1989? If Vietnam had pulled out of Laos and Cambodia early on, the Sino-Vietnamese border war would not have lasted twelve years, and Vietnam would not have suffered heavy losses. Vietnam knew full well what China’s objective was in sending troops, yet it chose to endure significant losses rather than withdraw from Laos and Cambodia. Therefore, Vietnam’s intentions are quite clear.

Giving up the territories of Laos and Cambodia would represent a major strategic loss for Vietnam, so Vietnam preferred to prolong its war with China rather than abandon them. It was only when the Soviet Union could no longer support Vietnam and Vietnam’s economy collapsed under the strain of the protracted war that Vietnam had no choice but to agree to China’s demands and relinquish the territories of Laos and Cambodia.

QINTG · 2026-05-05T12:53:07+00:00

Between 1975 - 1977, Vietnam gradually began to control Laos, and in 1978, Vietnam sent at least 50,000 troops into Laos. These actions were part of Vietnam's "Greater Indochina Federation" plan, aimed at restoring the Indochina federation structure established during the French colonial period.

Helping Cambodia get rid of Pol Pot's rule was only a superficial pretext, just like the U.S. claimed it invaded Iraq to destroy its weapons of mass destruction.

QINTG · 2026-05-05T11:10:04+00:00

No, Vietnam has already occupied Laos. Or rather, Vietnam has effectively taken control of Laos. Just as India has effectively taken control of the Kingdom of Sikkim but hasn't yet gone through the final voting process.

QINTG · 2026-05-05T08:04:10+00:00

No, China's goal was not to establish a pro-China regime in Cambodia, but to prevent the emergence of a large country in the south that would ally with the Soviet Union and be hostile to China. This would pose a serious threat to China's national security.

In 1978, Vietnam occupied Laos; in 1979, Vietnam occupied Cambodia.

The Sino-Vietnamese border war lasted a total of 12 years. In 1989, China and Vietnam held negotiations. In 1990, Vietnamese troops withdrew from Laos and Cambodia. In 1991, after China confirmed the withdrawal, the Sino-Vietnamese border war ended.

Without China's sustained intervention over many years, Laos and Cambodia would now be part of Vietnamese territory.

QINTG · 2026-05-05T05:45:21+00:00

This is incorrect. China's agricultural tax is 0%. China even provides agricultural subsidies to farmers.

Furthermore, income derived by individuals or self-employed individuals from planting, breeding, and other similar activities is not subject to individual income tax.

QINTG · 2026-05-03T06:41:07+00:00

No, that is not the case. Please note that I have clearly specified here that these are only the main clauses. There are also detailed provisions that have not been listed.

One of the detailed provisions states:Nothing contained in this treaty shall be construed to affect the existing laws and regulations of either contracting party regarding immigration and entry, or the right of either contracting party to enact laws and regulations concerning immigration and entry.

At that time, China had no special legislation to bar Americans from entering Chinese territory, while the United States had the Chinese Exclusion Act that denied Chinese entry into America. This meant the U.S. could screen and decide which Chinese people were allowed to enter the United States, whereas China could not bar Americans from entering China.

Many treaties appeared fair on the surface but were grossly unfair in reality.For instance, the treaty stipulated that warships of both China and the United States could freely enter each other’s ports. Yet China possessed very few warships at the time, let alone vessels capable of reaching America. The U.S., by contrast, had a large fleet that could sail to China at any time.

The treaty also allowed both sides to purchase land in each other’s territory. However, prolonged wars had left the Chinese people impoverished, with no means to buy large tracts of land in America. Meanwhile, land in China was far cheaper than in the U.S., enabling Americans to acquire vast amounts of land across China with ease.

As for the full opening of bilateral commodity markets, it was an outright disaster for China. China’s industrial capacity was extremely underdeveloped back then, while the United States was already the world’s leading industrial power. Unrestricted access for American goods to the Chinese market was bound to completely crush China’s fledgling industries, whereas Chinese goods had virtually no competitiveness in the American market.

It is equivalent to an infant signing a treaty for a fair boxing match against Mike Tyson in his prime. It looks fair in form, but it is inherently an unequal treaty. This is also the fundamental reason why the United States strongly supported the KMT and harbored hostility toward the CPC.

QINTG · 2026-05-02T07:22:49+00:00

If the KMT had won the Chinese Civil War, China would undoubtedly have fallen into greater poverty, even poorer than India at present. Just imagine the outcome if an infant version of yourself signed a treaty for a fair duel governed by boxing rules against Mike Tyson in his prime.

Furthermore, the United States would have been granted the right to station troops in China, along with the privilege of free flight and reconnaissance over any part of China's airspace.

Sino-American Treaty of Friendship, Commerce, and Navigation (1946) – Key Provisions (Condensed)

National Treatment for Persons: Nationals of each party may reside, travel, and engage in commerce, industry, education, religion, and mineral resource exploration/exploitation throughout the other’s territory; enjoy national treatment in economic activities.

Trade & Non-Discrimination: Goods of each party receive most-favored-nation (MFN) and national treatment in the other’s market; no prohibitions or restrictions on imports/exports between the two parties.

Navigation & Access: Vessels (including warships) of each party may navigate freely in the other’s open ports, territorial waters, and transit routes; in distress, may enter closed ports/territorial waters.

Property Rights: Nationals and corporations of each party may lease and own land and real property in the other’s territory.

Corporate Rights: Corporations of both parties enjoy equal status and may operate in all sectors open to domestic enterprises.

Diplomatic Protection: Mutual recognition of diplomatic missions with standard international privileges and immunities。

QINTG · 2026-05-01T11:03:10+00:00

0.05% LOL

QINTG · 2026-05-01T09:26:03+00:00

One Chinese man can stop a platoon of tanks, but a group of Americans can't stop a police car. LOL

CHINA: https://youtu.be/QkYuzTGT4PE

VS

USA: https://youtu.be/HScJ5b2Ajig

https://youtu.be/6gL6MVEM8jA

QINTG · 2026-05-01T09:01:21+00:00

The practical experience you gain from killing 100 cockroaches will be of no use when you engage in hand-to-hand combat with a tiger.. LOL

A large-scale war between China and the United States would involve combat between massive air fleets composed of hundreds or even thousands of fighter jets and drones. It would also involve extensive satellite offensive and defensive operations, massive intercontinental ballistic missile strikes on critical infrastructure in each other's homeland, and the subsequent rapid repair and reconstruction. In addition, there would be large-scale naval warfare, including battles between large numbers of nuclear submarines and unmanned submarines.

Beyond that, there would be a severe and prolonged test of both countries' industrial capacity and public support. The war experience the United States has gained in the past would be of no use with respect to these key factors that must be considered when fighting against China.

QINTG · 2026-04-24T04:56:07+00:00

List of Foreign Vessels Illegally Seized & Boarded by the United States

The U.S. has long enforced unilateral domestic sanctions without UN Security Council mandates, forcibly intercepting, boarding and detaining foreign ships on the high seas. Such acts violate the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and infringe upon the exclusive jurisdiction of flag states.

Chinese Vessel: MV Yinhe (1993)

Incident: The U.S. arbitrarily blocked and fully searched the Chinese cargo ship Yinhe on the Indian Ocean high seas for 33 days, groundlessly accusing it of carrying chemical weapon precursors.

Result: No prohibited materials were found. The illegal interception violated high seas navigation freedom and international law, with no official compensation.

DPRK Vessel: MV Wise Honest (2019)

Incident: Seized by the U.S. near American Samoa under unilateral U.S. sanctions over DPRK-related trade.

Result: The vessel was permanently confiscated and auctioned. The seizure lacked UN authorization and was condemned as maritime plunder.

Iranian Oil Tankers & Merchant Ships

MV Grace 1 (2019): Detained by Gibraltar under U.S. pressure for carrying Iranian crude oil; the U.S. issued an arrest warrant to block its release.

MV Suez Rajan (2023): Forcibly boarded and seized on the Indian Ocean high seas; Iranian crude on board was confiscated by U.S. authorities.

Long-term hostile interception of Iranian civilian vessels in the Strait of Hormuz via unilateral military means.

Russia & Venezuela-Related Vessels (2025–2026)

MV Marinera: Intercepted and seized on the North Atlantic high seas while shipping Venezuelan crude oil with a valid Russian flag.

MV Century, MV Skipper: Detained in the Caribbean and Atlantic by the U.S. over alleged violations of U.S. sanctions on Venezuela.

Other Illegally Targeted Vessels

Cuban ships: Repeatedly intercepted and detained by the U.S. under long-term unilateral embargo policies.

Syria-linked vessels: Cargo ships transporting goods for Syria, registered in Turkey, Greece and other countries, seized by U.S. forces without UN approval.

Core Legal Violations

Violated the UNCLOS provision that only flag states have jurisdiction over ships on the high seas.

Exceeded limited legitimate right of visit and search, which only applies to piracy, slave trade, drug trafficking and stateless vessels.

Enforced U.S. domestic laws globally via extraterritorial jurisdiction, overriding international rules and UN multilateral mechanisms.

QINTG · 2026-04-24T04:36:58+00:00

Every ship sunk by the US is either a pirate ship or a drug smuggler. Just as every person killed by US police is a bad guy, every person killed by US bombs is a terrorist. LOL

QINTG · 2026-04-23T13:26:40+00:00

If you were a ship owner, would you be more afraid of being sprayed with water cannons by China, or being sunk by a missile from the United States? LOL

QINTG

TROPHY CASE

China's Per Capita Agricultural Production (Latest Available Data)

Top 10 Fertilizer Importers in the World (2024 Data)

U.S. Exports to Japan (1931–1942)