超级军网MD质疑TG有木有在伊拉克和阿富汗得到利益《千年难得一见 ...
来源：百度文库 编辑：超级军网 时间：2024/04/29 15:43:44
原文翻译
China’s limited support for the US-led counterinsurgency campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq, despite the growing Chinese economic stake in these countries, has provoked some irritation among US observers over China’s ‘free riding’ on the back of dead European, American, and Afghan or Iraqi soldiers. S. Frederick Starr, chairman of the Central Asia-Caucasus Institute, caught the mood well when he said some might see it as, ‘We do the heavy lifting…And they pick the fruit.’
在阿富汗和伊拉克，以美国为首的反暴动行动中，中国的支持是有限的。虽然中国经济已经控制了这些国家，但还是刺激了美国观察家，认为中国骑在死去的欧洲、美国、阿富汗和伊拉克士兵头上来占便宜。
The Chinese government for its part has continued to reject suggestions that it contribute combat forces to the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) seeking to pacify Afghanistan. China has also dismissed inquiries about whether NATO could send supplies, even only non-lethal ones such as food and clothing, through Chinese territory to Afghanistan to support the coalition militaries there.
中国政府方面继续拒绝派遣军队到以北约为首的国际安全援助部队的建议，国际安全援助部队旨在寻求阿富汗的安定局面。中国还取消掉关于是否通过中国领土送供给到阿富汗联合部队的研究，甚至只是些非军事供应，例如食品和衣物，他们都不让。
China’s security ties with Afghanistan resemble Beijing’s policies in Iraq, which have focused on investing in the Iraqi energy sector while shunning any major security role. In both Afghanistan and Iraq, Chinese policy makers are ambiguous about the US military role. They certainly don’t want Islamist extremists to triumph there, since they could then use these territories to attempt to spread extremism throughout China. Chinese officials have also traditionally avoided challenging the United States on core security issues—and the Obama administration has clearly identified the Afghan and Iraqi wars as two of them.
中国跟阿富汗的安全纽带类似于北京在伊拉克的政策，中国集中于投资伊拉克的能源，而回避其它任何安全角色。在阿富汗和伊拉克，中国的政策制定者对美国在那里的军事角色很不明确。他们肯定不想要伊斯兰极端分子在那里取胜，因为这些极端分子能利用这个区域来试图蔓延极端主义到全中国。中国官员也一如继往地回避挑战美国在安全事务核心地位――奥巴马政府已经清楚地认识到，阿富汗战争和伊拉克战争是两回事。
Having the Americans take the lead in fighting Islamists insurgents in Afghanistan and Iraq also relieves China of having to fight them directly. Chinese policy makers prefer that the United States and its allies bear the burden of countering radical Islamist movements outside of China, especially as alarm grows at how Islamist extremists are depicting their policies in Xinjiang as anti-Muslim.
有美国人在阿富汗和伊拉克领导反击伊斯兰叛乱分子，中国就不用直接地打他们了，给中国解了围。中国政策制定者情愿美国跟美国的盟国在中国以外承担反极端伊斯兰分子行动，特别是当他们看到新疆的伊斯兰极端分子是怎么把他们的政策描绘成“反伊斯兰”的，这个警钟不断地在他们耳边响起。
Yet, while Chinese leaders don’t challenge the legitimacy of the US military operations in Afghanistan or Iraq, and indeed want the United States to continue to fight Islamist terrorism and promote Afghanistan’s and Iraq’s economic and political reconstruction, they don’t support maintaining a long-term Western military presence in these countries. Given these conflicting pressures, the Chinese government has publicly supported the Afghan and Iraqi governments, but sought to distance itself from the US-led counterinsurgency campaigns in both countries, as well as refraining from endorsing any lengthy Western military presence in these regions.
但是，中国领导人不想挑战美国在阿富汗和伊拉克军事行动的合法地位，事实上，他们想要美国继续反伊斯兰恐怖主义和推动阿富汗和伊拉克的经济和政治重建，但他们不支持西方国家在那里的军事长期存在。受到这些矛盾冲突的压力，中国政府公开支持阿富汗和伊斯兰政府，但跟在这两个国家以美国为首的反暴动保持距离，还有，他们忍住不支持西方在这些地区任何长期的军事存在。
But although Chinese policy makers have excluded a Chinese military role in Afghanistan or Iraq, they’ve encouraged Chinese companies to invest in developing these countries’ natural resources. Recent Chinese investment activity has concentrated on gaining access to raw materials and developing the infrastructure required to transport these goods to China.
但是，尽管中国政策制定者已经排除中国在阿富汗和伊拉克的军事角色，但他们鼓励中国公司投资这些国家的自然资源。近期，中国的投资集中在获取原材料的渠道和发展基础设施，来运送物资回中国。
To focus on Afghanistan, after its government opened its energy, mineral, and raw material sectors to foreign investment in 2007, China rapidly became Afghanistan’s largest foreign investor with the surprise purchase by the Metallurgical Corporation of China (MCC) of a controlling stake in the Aynak copper field. According to the Afghanistan and British Geological Surveys, the Aynak copper deposit, located 35 kilometres south of Kabul at the northern end of LogarProvince, contains 240 million tons of material with a grade of 2.3 percent copper in the central portion of the deposit. The November 2007 bid of more than $3 billion made that transaction the single largest foreign direct investment in Afghanistan. The state-owned MCC could offer a package of benefits that its private sector competitors couldn’t match, and in July 2009, MCC and Jiangxi Copper Co. started development work at the mine.
自从2007年，他们的政府设立了对外投资能源、煤矿和原材料部门之后，他们就把精力集中在阿富汗，中国立刻成为阿富汗最大的外国投资者，中国冶金公司控股阿富汗的艾娜克铜矿，采购量非常令人惊讶。根据阿富汗和英国地质调查机构信息，艾娜克铜矿座落于洛迦省北部的喀布尔（注：阿富汗首都）以南35公里，在存储地中心，有24千万吨的含有2.3%铜的资源。2007年11月投标，中国跟他们成交30多亿美元的交易，是阿富汗最大的一笔单项外国投资。国营的中国冶金公司能够提供一揽子好处，私营的竞争者不是其对手，在2009年7月，中国冶金公司和江西铜企开始在那里谋求发展煤矿。
评论翻译
ewldest I don't care "whose" war it is - end it now 363 Fans
16 hours ago (9:32 AM)
This harping about China is so amusing. We decide to bankrupt ourselves to maintain neocolonial holdings where we don't belong, and then complain because the Chinese are smart enough to avoid that while using economics and diplomacy to further their interests there? What a joke!
老是这样对中国唧唧歪歪真是搞笑。我们为了占有原不属于我们的新殖民财产，自己把自己搞破产了，现在又来抱怨，就因为中国人很聪明，利用经济和外交手段来获取那里的利益？真是个笑话！
――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――
Brandon Spag 22 Fans
11:51 AM on 8/16/2011
"We do the heavy lifting…An­d they pick the fruit."
Yeah, like the US has never exploited a conflict to further national interests.
"they don’t support maintainin­g a long-term Western military presence in these countries.­"
When they invest in their military we feel threatened­. When they refuse to rush into war we complain.
“我们累死累活…而他们却坐享其成。”
是啊，美国从未引起矛盾来攫取国家利益。
“他们不支持在这些国家长期存在西方军事势力。”
当他们投资军事时，我们觉得受到了威胁；当他们拒绝草率发起战争时，我们也抱怨。
――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――
Jimmy2010 5 Fans
11:00 AM on 8/16/2011
Counterins­urgency campaigns in Iraq and Afganistan­? What a shameless comment on the US invasion to Iraq and Afganistan­!!
Those were not counterins­urgency campaigns; instead, those were pure invasions in the name of counter-terrorsim.
伊拉克和阿富汗的紧急反击行动？ 这样评论美国对伊拉克和阿富汗的侵略，太不要脸了！！
这些不是紧急反击行动，而是单纯的以反恐为名义的侵略。
――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――
Roberto Ladao 0 Fans
09:38 AM on 8/16/2011
China is smart businessma­n, while the Communist Government of China, wants the U.S. to weaken military, questionin­g the U.S. defence budget and they want the U.S. military presence out from their back yard, ASIA. This new RED BULLY DRAGON, don't want uncle Sam around so they can bullies their neighbors.
中国人是很精明的商人，中国共产主义政府想要削弱美国军事，质疑美国的国防预算，他们想要美国军事势力撤出他们亚洲后院。这是新一代的红色霸龙，他们不想要山姆大叔在旁边，这样他们就能欺负他们的邻居。
――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
WorkhelpWorkhelp "I'm sing - ing in the rain." (All wet.) 231 Fans
01:26 AM on 8/16/2011
Chine hasn't a military care in the world. If they wanted to go to Irag, they'd flatten the place in a week. A billion soldiers ready to go. The real elephant in the world.
中国在世界上没有军事忌讳。如果他们想要去伊拉克，他们会在一周就摧毁那个地方。十亿战士准备好要去了。他们才是世界上真正的大象。
――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――
guardstar360 Mother of Creation 125 Fans
01:17 AM on 8/16/2011
Is China Freeloading Off The U.S. Military's Work In Afghanista­n And Iraq?
this question can easily be applied to the elephant in the room, that no one wants to point out !
Is Israel Freeloadin­g Off The U.S. Military's Work In Afghanista­n And Iraq? Yes they are and have been for some time now !
美国军队在阿富汗和伊拉克工作，中国却只占便宜吗？
这个问题是明显着的，没人想要指出来！
以色列有没有占美国军事在阿富汗和伊拉克的便宜？有，他们有，而且占了好一段时间了！
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
marknez21 584 Fans
04:13 AM on 8/16/2011
Israel freeloadin­g off the US, we help Israel over $3 billion each year.
以色列有占美国的便宜，我们每年帮以色列30多亿美元。
――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――
TAIsabel Suffer no fools. 338 Fans
06:38 PM on 8/15/2011
Why should they, they are financing it. It's like asking the bank that holds your mortgage to mow the lawn for you.
The Chinese have been conquering the world through trade for thousands of years. They know far more that we wiol ever learn.
为什么他们是占便宜？他们一直有在资助（美国）。这就像叫银行去帮你割草坪一样，银行有你的抵押品呢。
中国人靠贸易征服了世界几千年。他们比我们知道得要多。
――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
khanti Cultivator 110 Fans
06:25 PM on 8/15/2011
I think Chna has a non interferen­ce policy. They only support UN sanctioned peace keeping forces.
我认为中国有“不干涉”的政策。他们只支持联合国维和部队在那里。
――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――
AmericanEmpireisdead 17 Fans
06:23 PM on 8/15/2011
Spoils of War for the Real Winner.
战争的战利品是给真正的赢家
――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――
DAE 447 Fans
03:57 PM on 8/15/2011
So? Seems like the Chinese are being perfectly rational, pragmatic and reasonable in their diplomatic approach to the region.
那又怎样？看起来似乎中国人在那个地区的处理方法很合理，很务实，很公道
――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――
censorship sux 85 Fans
02:54 PM on 8/15/2011
i'm not understand­ing the complaint here ---did china force the u.s. to attack anyone ???
我不理解你们的抱怨――中国有强迫美国去打别人吗？？？
Scurvybro 46 Fans
03:15 PM on 8/15/2011
Bingo. Let's set aside the highly dubious notion that the U.S. military has any capacity for preventing "Islamist extremists to triumph" in Iraq and Afghanista­n. The U.S. decided to invade these countries regardless of China's opinion on the matter.
Even if China now perceives the U.S. occupation to make those countries safer places to do business, we shouldn't expect it to now pony up and help support our military operations there. If we were to withdraw our forces, and if China then perceived a correlated increase in risk to its business enterprise­s, I would expect China simply to withdraw them, rather than start contributi­ng to our occupation­.
This is the kind of pragmatism that now seems to characterize the post-Mao, "new" China. Military adventurism and political imperialism no longer appear to be their priorities­. They've been replaced by the drive to prosper financially.
对了。咱们先不管那令人非常怀疑的说法，说美国军事有能力阻止伊拉克和阿富汗的“伊斯兰的极端分子获得成功”。美国当初决定侵略这些国家，不理会中国在这件事上的意见。
即使中国现在理解美国对这些国家的占领是想让这些国家安全些，可以做生意，我们也不应该期望它为此埋单，帮助和支持我们在那里的军事行动。如果我们要撤回我们的部队，如果中国认识到这样会让他们在那里的企业担风险，那我希望中国干脆就撤回企业，而不是来支持我们的占领行为。
这是一种务实主义，现在看起来似乎是毛时代之后的特征，“新”中国军事冒险主义和政治帝国主义不再是他们优先考虑的。他们已经转变了，以经济繁荣为导向。
dbn3 10 Fans
02:54 PM on 8/15/2011
They aren't freeloadin­g, we are just plain stupid.
不是他们在占便宜，而是我们太傻。
PS；本帖的原文不是亮点；亮点是评论TG居然奇迹般的没中枪{:soso__11312251299557818427_4:}
http://www.ltaaa.com/wtfy/2738.html
20111314070819.jpg (32.75 KB, 下载次数: 0)
下载附件 保存到相册
原文翻译
China’s limited support for the US-led counterinsurgency campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq, despite the growing Chinese economic stake in these countries, has provoked some irritation among US observers over China’s ‘free riding’ on the back of dead European, American, and Afghan or Iraqi soldiers. S. Frederick Starr, chairman of the Central Asia-Caucasus Institute, caught the mood well when he said some might see it as, ‘We do the heavy lifting…And they pick the fruit.’
在阿富汗和伊拉克，以美国为首的反暴动行动中，中国的支持是有限的。虽然中国经济已经控制了这些国家，但还是刺激了美国观察家，认为中国骑在死去的欧洲、美国、阿富汗和伊拉克士兵头上来占便宜。
The Chinese government for its part has continued to reject suggestions that it contribute combat forces to the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) seeking to pacify Afghanistan. China has also dismissed inquiries about whether NATO could send supplies, even only non-lethal ones such as food and clothing, through Chinese territory to Afghanistan to support the coalition militaries there.
中国政府方面继续拒绝派遣军队到以北约为首的国际安全援助部队的建议，国际安全援助部队旨在寻求阿富汗的安定局面。中国还取消掉关于是否通过中国领土送供给到阿富汗联合部队的研究，甚至只是些非军事供应，例如食品和衣物，他们都不让。
China’s security ties with Afghanistan resemble Beijing’s policies in Iraq, which have focused on investing in the Iraqi energy sector while shunning any major security role. In both Afghanistan and Iraq, Chinese policy makers are ambiguous about the US military role. They certainly don’t want Islamist extremists to triumph there, since they could then use these territories to attempt to spread extremism throughout China. Chinese officials have also traditionally avoided challenging the United States on core security issues—and the Obama administration has clearly identified the Afghan and Iraqi wars as two of them.
中国跟阿富汗的安全纽带类似于北京在伊拉克的政策，中国集中于投资伊拉克的能源，而回避其它任何安全角色。在阿富汗和伊拉克，中国的政策制定者对美国在那里的军事角色很不明确。他们肯定不想要伊斯兰极端分子在那里取胜，因为这些极端分子能利用这个区域来试图蔓延极端主义到全中国。中国官员也一如继往地回避挑战美国在安全事务核心地位――奥巴马政府已经清楚地认识到，阿富汗战争和伊拉克战争是两回事。
Having the Americans take the lead in fighting Islamists insurgents in Afghanistan and Iraq also relieves China of having to fight them directly. Chinese policy makers prefer that the United States and its allies bear the burden of countering radical Islamist movements outside of China, especially as alarm grows at how Islamist extremists are depicting their policies in Xinjiang as anti-Muslim.
有美国人在阿富汗和伊拉克领导反击伊斯兰叛乱分子，中国就不用直接地打他们了，给中国解了围。中国政策制定者情愿美国跟美国的盟国在中国以外承担反极端伊斯兰分子行动，特别是当他们看到新疆的伊斯兰极端分子是怎么把他们的政策描绘成“反伊斯兰”的，这个警钟不断地在他们耳边响起。
Yet, while Chinese leaders don’t challenge the legitimacy of the US military operations in Afghanistan or Iraq, and indeed want the United States to continue to fight Islamist terrorism and promote Afghanistan’s and Iraq’s economic and political reconstruction, they don’t support maintaining a long-term Western military presence in these countries. Given these conflicting pressures, the Chinese government has publicly supported the Afghan and Iraqi governments, but sought to distance itself from the US-led counterinsurgency campaigns in both countries, as well as refraining from endorsing any lengthy Western military presence in these regions.
但是，中国领导人不想挑战美国在阿富汗和伊拉克军事行动的合法地位，事实上，他们想要美国继续反伊斯兰恐怖主义和推动阿富汗和伊拉克的经济和政治重建，但他们不支持西方国家在那里的军事长期存在。受到这些矛盾冲突的压力，中国政府公开支持阿富汗和伊斯兰政府，但跟在这两个国家以美国为首的反暴动保持距离，还有，他们忍住不支持西方在这些地区任何长期的军事存在。
But although Chinese policy makers have excluded a Chinese military role in Afghanistan or Iraq, they’ve encouraged Chinese companies to invest in developing these countries’ natural resources. Recent Chinese investment activity has concentrated on gaining access to raw materials and developing the infrastructure required to transport these goods to China.
但是，尽管中国政策制定者已经排除中国在阿富汗和伊拉克的军事角色，但他们鼓励中国公司投资这些国家的自然资源。近期，中国的投资集中在获取原材料的渠道和发展基础设施，来运送物资回中国。
To focus on Afghanistan, after its government opened its energy, mineral, and raw material sectors to foreign investment in 2007, China rapidly became Afghanistan’s largest foreign investor with the surprise purchase by the Metallurgical Corporation of China (MCC) of a controlling stake in the Aynak copper field. According to the Afghanistan and British Geological Surveys, the Aynak copper deposit, located 35 kilometres south of Kabul at the northern end of LogarProvince, contains 240 million tons of material with a grade of 2.3 percent copper in the central portion of the deposit. The November 2007 bid of more than $3 billion made that transaction the single largest foreign direct investment in Afghanistan. The state-owned MCC could offer a package of benefits that its private sector competitors couldn’t match, and in July 2009, MCC and Jiangxi Copper Co. started development work at the mine.
自从2007年，他们的政府设立了对外投资能源、煤矿和原材料部门之后，他们就把精力集中在阿富汗，中国立刻成为阿富汗最大的外国投资者，中国冶金公司控股阿富汗的艾娜克铜矿，采购量非常令人惊讶。根据阿富汗和英国地质调查机构信息，艾娜克铜矿座落于洛迦省北部的喀布尔（注：阿富汗首都）以南35公里，在存储地中心，有24千万吨的含有2.3%铜的资源。2007年11月投标，中国跟他们成交30多亿美元的交易，是阿富汗最大的一笔单项外国投资。国营的中国冶金公司能够提供一揽子好处，私营的竞争者不是其对手，在2009年7月，中国冶金公司和江西铜企开始在那里谋求发展煤矿。
评论翻译
ewldest I don't care "whose" war it is - end it now 363 Fans
16 hours ago (9:32 AM)
This harping about China is so amusing. We decide to bankrupt ourselves to maintain neocolonial holdings where we don't belong, and then complain because the Chinese are smart enough to avoid that while using economics and diplomacy to further their interests there? What a joke!
老是这样对中国唧唧歪歪真是搞笑。我们为了占有原不属于我们的新殖民财产，自己把自己搞破产了，现在又来抱怨，就因为中国人很聪明，利用经济和外交手段来获取那里的利益？真是个笑话！
――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――
Brandon Spag 22 Fans
11:51 AM on 8/16/2011
"We do the heavy lifting…An­d they pick the fruit."
Yeah, like the US has never exploited a conflict to further national interests.
"they don’t support maintainin­g a long-term Western military presence in these countries.­"
When they invest in their military we feel threatened­. When they refuse to rush into war we complain.
“我们累死累活…而他们却坐享其成。”
是啊，美国从未引起矛盾来攫取国家利益。
“他们不支持在这些国家长期存在西方军事势力。”
当他们投资军事时，我们觉得受到了威胁；当他们拒绝草率发起战争时，我们也抱怨。
――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――
Jimmy2010 5 Fans
11:00 AM on 8/16/2011
Counterins­urgency campaigns in Iraq and Afganistan­? What a shameless comment on the US invasion to Iraq and Afganistan­!!
Those were not counterins­urgency campaigns; instead, those were pure invasions in the name of counter-terrorsim.
伊拉克和阿富汗的紧急反击行动？ 这样评论美国对伊拉克和阿富汗的侵略，太不要脸了！！
这些不是紧急反击行动，而是单纯的以反恐为名义的侵略。
――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――
Roberto Ladao 0 Fans
09:38 AM on 8/16/2011
China is smart businessma­n, while the Communist Government of China, wants the U.S. to weaken military, questionin­g the U.S. defence budget and they want the U.S. military presence out from their back yard, ASIA. This new RED BULLY DRAGON, don't want uncle Sam around so they can bullies their neighbors.
中国人是很精明的商人，中国共产主义政府想要削弱美国军事，质疑美国的国防预算，他们想要美国军事势力撤出他们亚洲后院。这是新一代的红色霸龙，他们不想要山姆大叔在旁边，这样他们就能欺负他们的邻居。
――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
WorkhelpWorkhelp "I'm sing - ing in the rain." (All wet.) 231 Fans
01:26 AM on 8/16/2011
Chine hasn't a military care in the world. If they wanted to go to Irag, they'd flatten the place in a week. A billion soldiers ready to go. The real elephant in the world.
中国在世界上没有军事忌讳。如果他们想要去伊拉克，他们会在一周就摧毁那个地方。十亿战士准备好要去了。他们才是世界上真正的大象。
――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――
guardstar360 Mother of Creation 125 Fans
01:17 AM on 8/16/2011
Is China Freeloading Off The U.S. Military's Work In Afghanista­n And Iraq?
this question can easily be applied to the elephant in the room, that no one wants to point out !
Is Israel Freeloadin­g Off The U.S. Military's Work In Afghanista­n And Iraq? Yes they are and have been for some time now !
美国军队在阿富汗和伊拉克工作，中国却只占便宜吗？
这个问题是明显着的，没人想要指出来！
以色列有没有占美国军事在阿富汗和伊拉克的便宜？有，他们有，而且占了好一段时间了！
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
marknez21 584 Fans
04:13 AM on 8/16/2011
Israel freeloadin­g off the US, we help Israel over $3 billion each year.
以色列有占美国的便宜，我们每年帮以色列30多亿美元。
――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――
TAIsabel Suffer no fools. 338 Fans
06:38 PM on 8/15/2011
Why should they, they are financing it. It's like asking the bank that holds your mortgage to mow the lawn for you.
The Chinese have been conquering the world through trade for thousands of years. They know far more that we wiol ever learn.
为什么他们是占便宜？他们一直有在资助（美国）。这就像叫银行去帮你割草坪一样，银行有你的抵押品呢。
中国人靠贸易征服了世界几千年。他们比我们知道得要多。
――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
khanti Cultivator 110 Fans
06:25 PM on 8/15/2011
I think Chna has a non interferen­ce policy. They only support UN sanctioned peace keeping forces.
我认为中国有“不干涉”的政策。他们只支持联合国维和部队在那里。
――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――
AmericanEmpireisdead 17 Fans
06:23 PM on 8/15/2011
Spoils of War for the Real Winner.
战争的战利品是给真正的赢家
――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――
DAE 447 Fans
03:57 PM on 8/15/2011
So? Seems like the Chinese are being perfectly rational, pragmatic and reasonable in their diplomatic approach to the region.
那又怎样？看起来似乎中国人在那个地区的处理方法很合理，很务实，很公道
――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――
censorship sux 85 Fans
02:54 PM on 8/15/2011
i'm not understand­ing the complaint here ---did china force the u.s. to attack anyone ???
我不理解你们的抱怨――中国有强迫美国去打别人吗？？？
Scurvybro 46 Fans
03:15 PM on 8/15/2011
Bingo. Let's set aside the highly dubious notion that the U.S. military has any capacity for preventing "Islamist extremists to triumph" in Iraq and Afghanista­n. The U.S. decided to invade these countries regardless of China's opinion on the matter.
Even if China now perceives the U.S. occupation to make those countries safer places to do business, we shouldn't expect it to now pony up and help support our military operations there. If we were to withdraw our forces, and if China then perceived a correlated increase in risk to its business enterprise­s, I would expect China simply to withdraw them, rather than start contributi­ng to our occupation­.
This is the kind of pragmatism that now seems to characterize the post-Mao, "new" China. Military adventurism and political imperialism no longer appear to be their priorities­. They've been replaced by the drive to prosper financially.
对了。咱们先不管那令人非常怀疑的说法，说美国军事有能力阻止伊拉克和阿富汗的“伊斯兰的极端分子获得成功”。美国当初决定侵略这些国家，不理会中国在这件事上的意见。
即使中国现在理解美国对这些国家的占领是想让这些国家安全些，可以做生意，我们也不应该期望它为此埋单，帮助和支持我们在那里的军事行动。如果我们要撤回我们的部队，如果中国认识到这样会让他们在那里的企业担风险，那我希望中国干脆就撤回企业，而不是来支持我们的占领行为。
这是一种务实主义，现在看起来似乎是毛时代之后的特征，“新”中国军事冒险主义和政治帝国主义不再是他们优先考虑的。他们已经转变了，以经济繁荣为导向。
dbn3 10 Fans
02:54 PM on 8/15/2011
They aren't freeloadin­g, we are just plain stupid.
不是他们在占便宜，而是我们太傻。
PS；本帖的原文不是亮点；亮点是评论TG居然奇迹般的没中枪{:soso__11312251299557818427_4:}
http://www.ltaaa.com/wtfy/2738.html
这么久才审核好
有意思，也许只是美国国民对政府的不满吧
...竟然都是真正的理智党（非贬义），美国佬还是不要理智的好
，美国佬还是不要理智的好玩经济，纵观人类历史，能跟中国人相提并论的寥寥无几。
当年美国是最喜欢按经济规律办事的，但自从美国变成了美帝之后，就变得狂妄自大了，以为自己能制定游戏规则，把世界人民玩弄于股掌之间，这才多少年？就发现玩不下去了。
自作孽不可活！
当年美国是最喜欢按经济规律办事的，但自从美国变成了美帝之后，就变得狂妄自大了，以为自己能制定游戏规则，把世界人民玩弄于股掌之间，这才多少年？就发现玩不下去了。
自作孽不可活！
看到这样的评论:
我是穿好防弹衣进来的，进来之后发现美国人在自残……
表示很不习惯！
我是穿好防弹衣进来的，进来之后发现美国人在自残……
表示很不习惯！
照这么混,兔子枪会中得越来越少
带着防弹衣在龙腾看的贴，白穿了····
居然奇迹般的没中枪
人家都不习惯了啊
人家都不习惯了啊
实践证明世界人民站在我天朝一边的
难道是美国左派？不知道是哪家报纸的文章。
..有一腿..!!!!!!爱
围观群众这么多,居然都没中枪
゛风_云ャ囝 发表于 2011-8-23 15:02 ![]()
..有一腿..!!!!!!爱
不要卷着舌头说话！
..有一腿..!!!!!!爱
不要卷着舌头说话！
美帝也不都是傻人，中国现在的定位很明确还是韬光养晦，别人打架不管，打完了让做生意就行。
光荣的木有中枪啊。 事实上 里知道 美国人并不愚蠢，在强悍的国力和火力支持下，他们并非没有自己的正确观点。。。奇迹般的没中枪？
不适应不中枪的感觉
自己人都受不了……MD这几年的政策要点是挺……
这评论太冷静，让我觉得不真实啊
首先，楼主辛苦了，谢谢。
另外想问，楼主是不是挑选着译的？意见怎么这么一致。
另外想问，楼主是不是挑选着译的？意见怎么这么一致。
好可怕的评论啊...最怕的就是清醒理智的敌人啊...
小刺猬 发表于 2011-8-23 17:09 ![]()
首先，楼主辛苦了，谢谢。
另外想问，楼主是不是挑选着译的？意见怎么这么一致。
绝对木有不信你点连接进去看看就知道了，我看的时候也纳闷那这还是MD网民吗
首先，楼主辛苦了，谢谢。
另外想问，楼主是不是挑选着译的？意见怎么这么一致。
绝对木有不信你点连接进去看看就知道了，我看的时候也纳闷那这还是MD网民吗
铅球万袋 发表于 2011-8-23 17:25 ![]()
好可怕的评论啊...最怕的就是清醒理智的敌人啊...
同感啊，看别的国家的评论，就数美帝清醒的多.....
好可怕的评论啊...最怕的就是清醒理智的敌人啊...
同感啊，看别的国家的评论，就数美帝清醒的多.....
爱喝人奶的狼 发表于 2011-8-23 17:27 ![]()
绝对木有不信你点连接进去看看就知道了，我看的时候也纳闷那这还是MD网民吗
呵呵，那真是少见咧，谢谢给俺们运过来好东东，以后要继续噢
绝对木有不信你点连接进去看看就知道了，我看的时候也纳闷那这还是MD网民吗
呵呵，那真是少见咧，谢谢给俺们运过来好东东，以后要继续噢
鬼佬们说这么酸的话没劲啊 美军发动战争是为了给阿富汗伊拉克人民带去幸福生活自由等等 我们投资重建也是一样啊 都是为了人民的幸福生活着想 作为联合国常任理事国我们应该做继续做。
搞了那么多美国国债就是最实际的支持了 收获时多分一份是理所当然的吧
土鳖没中枪都让我有点不习惯了……
long_1983123 发表于 2011-8-23 14:54 ![]()
难道是美国左派？不知道是哪家报纸的文章。
文章出处是The diplomat, 楼主摘的评论是huffington post的讨论
huff post个人感觉是左派急先锋
难道是美国左派？不知道是哪家报纸的文章。
文章出处是The diplomat, 楼主摘的评论是huffington post的讨论
huff post个人感觉是左派急先锋
搞不好MD那也有拿人民币的，就是不知道什么价格。
MD的网民整体素质还是比较高,评论基本还算比较理智,还算公正吧;难得;
果然都是左翼的论调额……TG这次没中枪，也要感谢美债危机
TG只要有生意做，管你打不打
明显是美国P民对政府不满。
人类就是这样的生物，昨天还相互仇视，今天有了共同的新敌人马上就能冰释前嫌。
相比韩国网友那种言论，美国网友这种态度还是比较可怕的。
明显是美国P民对政府不满。
人类就是这样的生物，昨天还相互仇视，今天有了共同的新敌人马上就能冰释前嫌。
相比韩国网友那种言论，美国网友这种态度还是比较可怕的。
只是对自己政府不满而已。
天下JY是一家啊。。。
多少感觉比棒子强了很多，知道归根结底，还是和平赚钱最重要～
反战情绪导致没中枪而已...何况兔子一贯奉行“走自己的路，让别人无路可走”
还是MD p民不满吧。
看到美国路边有刷的标语，大意是号召大家不要交税，因为这些税会拿去打仗。
不过不交税的MDp民应该很少很少，不交税的罪过即使不能说大过杀人放火至少也大过抢劫强奸这种
看到美国路边有刷的标语，大意是号召大家不要交税，因为这些税会拿去打仗。
不过不交税的MDp民应该很少很少，不交税的罪过即使不能说大过杀人放火至少也大过抢劫强奸这种
这个，我觉得美国人不会不知道自己在干什么，有什么样的人民就有什么样的政府，这样的理性不是现实