美国军坛讨论：美国花钱打仗，中印却得到战利品？

转自：龙腾网 翻译：福禄寿禧

译文简介:阿富汗，吞噬金钱与鲜血的无底洞-美国和英国在那牺牲了超过2100条生命，

花费了3020亿英镑（5800亿美元）-即将要有回报了。

正文翻译:The money and blood pit that is Afghanistan- where the United

States and Britain have spent more than 2100 lives and ￡302 billion ($580

billion) - isabout to pay a dividend.

But it won't be going to the countrieswhich have made this considerable

sacrifice. The contracts to open up Afghanistan's mineral and fossil-fuel

wealth,and to build the railways that will transport it out of the country,

are beingwon or pursued by China, India, Iran,and Russia.

阿富汗，吞噬金钱与鲜血的无底洞-美国和英国在那牺牲了超过2100条生命，花费了

3020亿英镑（5800亿美元）-即将要有回报了。

但是却不是付给付出了巨大牺牲的国家。开采阿富汗矿物资源和化石燃料，修建可以将

之运出这个国家的铁路线的合同，要被中国，印度，伊朗和俄罗斯赢得了。



The potentially lucrative task ofexploiting Afghanistan's immense mineral

wealth - estimated to be worth around ￡2 trillion, according to the

KabulGovernment - is only in the early stages. But already China and India

in particular are doing dealsand beginning work.

开发阿富汗巨量矿物资源-这些矿产据喀布尔政府称估计价值2万亿英镑-拥有很大潜在

利益，这项工作现在还处于起步阶段。但是尤其是中国和印度正在开展相关工作。



Afghanistan's mineral wealth extends over a huge range of valuable

resources:iron, gold, copper, niobium (used in hardening steel), uranium,

marble, cobalt,mercury, caesium, molybdenum (a metal which can withstand

high temperatures andis used to make various alloys), and other rare earth

minerals. The country hasespecially valuable deposits of lithium, the metal

used in batteries. Indeed, aPentagon official is on record suggesting that

Afghanistancould be "the Saudi  Arabia of lithium

阿富汗矿产中贵重资源种类繁多：铁，金，铜，铌（用于硬化钢铁），铀，大理石，钴

，汞，铯，钼（抗高温金属，用于制造各种合金）和其他稀有的地球矿物。这个国家的

锂资源尤其丰富，这种金属可用于制造蓄电池。实际上，一名五角大楼官员公开宣称阿

富汗堪称“锂资源的沙特阿拉伯”

评论翻译:Debt Owed to China:

$1,159.5 Billion Dollars

Cost of War Since 2001:

$1,313.5 Billion Dollars (Afghanistan$511.5 Billions Dollars)

欠中国的债务：

11595亿美元

2001年至今的战争花销

13135亿美元（阿富汗战争5115亿美元）



#2 Token White Guy

And let China deal with the business whenthe Taliban start hitting their

mineral and supply convoys going in and out ofthe country.

当塔利班在他们进出这个国家的时候袭击他们的矿物运输和补给护卫车队时，让中国自

己处理吧



#3 [RNZE]Sapper

回复2楼：

From the article:

Dr Richard Weitz, senior fellow of theCentre for Political-Military Analysis

said: "From our perspective, China shouldhave done more in terms of

security. From their perspective, they didn't needto; they could free-ride,

we were going to do it anyway. They didn't see anypoint because all they

would do is incur a lot of sacrifice and antagonise theTaleban and the

global terrorist movement, and they'd rather let us incurthat."

And more importantly...

And the Chinese have business practicesthat Western countries ... let's just

say that Chinese generosity towards localofficials (Taliban?) exceeds that

of what Western companies are capable.

文章里的话：

政治军事分析中心高级研究员理查德?韦茨博士说：“以我们的观点看，中国本应该在

安全事务上出力更加多一些。以他们的观点看，并不需要那样做，他们可以自由通行，

反正我们会搞定的。他们觉得没有必要是因为，他们所要做的一切会招致大量牺牲，并

会与塔利班和国际恐怖活动为敌，他们更想让我们承受这些。”

更重要的是...

中国人有做生意的惯例，所以西方国家……还是让我们这么说吧，中国人对当地官员（

塔利班？）出手阔绰的程度远超西方公司。



#4 KoTeMoRe

回复3楼：

The Chinese are not more generous, that's amyth. But they are inclined to

roll with the tide.

"You'll eat with the snake as long asit doesn't bite you and you'll drink

with the ox as long as it doesn't hornyou."

The issue is that the Westerners are tooaccustomed to impose a system

whenever they go. The Chinese buy the system out.

中国人才不是更加慷慨，那只是个传说。但是他们倾向于随机应变。

“蛇不咬你的时候你可以和蛇一起进餐，公牛不顶你的时候你可以和公牛一起喝酒”

问题是西方人不管在任何时候总是太习惯于强推一个体系，而中国人则把整个体系买下

来



#5 ragnarok

Its a shame too for all the sacrificesmade. Americashould be able to at

least secure a few contracts for something here. Thechinese will try to take

as many contracts as posible and run the system theirway without comprimise.

They don't really care for the Islamic way of doingbusiness, their more into

getting things done as fast as they can with as aslittle money they would

perfer to spend. Indiamight do more for PR because of Pakistan,while

Iranwill be their closest financial ally. It surprises me though that

Russiaconsidering its history with Afganistan during the cold war would get

contractsfor mining those minerals as well.

对所有做出的牺牲来说这是个耻辱。美国最后应该在这抢到几个合同。中国人会试图尽

可能多的抢到合同，然后霸道的按他们的方式来运行这个体系。他们才不管伊斯兰式的

经商方式，他们只想用最少的钱尽可能快的把他们的事情办妥。由于巴基斯坦，印度可

能会更加注重公共关系，伊朗会是他们最亲密的金钱上的盟友。令我吃惊的是，考虑到

冷战时和阿富汗的过节，俄罗斯竟然也会获得开矿的合同。



#6 Sootan

回复2楼：

Securing the business, mines and supplylines are easy if you're not into

nation building.

回复 2 楼：

保护商贸，矿山和补给线是很容易的，如果你不参与国家重建的话。



#7 Pukewarm

回复6楼：

and that's what Chinabuilding roads in Pakistanfor

回复 6 楼：

这就是中国在巴基斯坦修建道路的原因



#8 G-AWZT

回复2楼：

Let them figure out how much of a pain inthe azz they are.

回复 2 楼：

让他们尝尝这会有多痛苦。



#9 Tiddy1

As long as the Taleban get kick backs fromwhoever wins the business they

will not interfere. It's a financial world andhas been for years, the

Taleban know this just as much as anyone else does.

只要塔利班从赢得买卖的人那里得到回扣的话，他们就不会干涉了。这是个物质的世界

，很多年了一直都是，就像其他人一样，塔利班也知道。



#10 PeterG

This reminds me of the american study irecently read, where they figured the

US have spent a trillion dollars orso in the last 30 years, securing the

flow of oil from the hormuz strait. China has spent0. And China receives

moreoil from there than the US.

这让我想起了我最近读过的一份美国研究，其中指出美国在最近的30年里花费了1万亿

美元或者差不多的数字来保护经过霍尔木兹海峡的石油运输。中国一分钱没花。而中国

却从那获得了比美国还多的石油。



#11 KoTeMoRe

回复10楼：

China isnot in the business of fighting, but in the business of facilitating

theaforementionned fighting. IE they don't need to "secure" the flow,since

they're the "alternative". Who said apeasement doesn't work?

回复 10 楼：

中国不参与争斗，却促进前面提及的争斗。即他们不需要“保护”运输，因为他们就是

“备选”。谁说绥靖没有效呢？



#12 IconOfEvi

This is the **** that ticks me off

Oh well, if the PRC DOES end up at somepoint down the road invading...the

fking Afghans will wish for us, or even theRussians.

The PRC doesn't **** around with this kindathing.

Lets take a scenario - a town, whileprofessing to be part of the government

and allied to the local foreign army,they lie in reality and are helping the

Taliban. Our strategy? Hearts andMinds. Theirs? Burn the ****ing village

down, possibly with pig grease thrownin so all the fundies will fear getting

denied entry to Heaven.

Guess who'll have gotten **** done in theend?

这是****，气死我了

哦好吧，如果中华人民共和国历史终结而走上了侵略的道路......阿富汗人会来求我们

的，甚至是去求俄罗斯人

中华人民共和国这样的话就不会瞎摆弄了



让我们看这么一个场景-一个小镇，声称自己是政府的人并协助当地的外国军队，但是

事实上却在撒谎，实际支持塔利班。而我们的策略呢？收买人心，他们的？把该死的村

庄烧掉吧，或许可以扔进去猪油去烧，这样所有人就都去不了天堂啦。

猜猜看最后谁会爽？



#13 KoTeMoRe

回复12楼：

If the Commies didn't do it, why wouldother Commies do that? Plus the

Chinese as the Russians have always been there.Taliban, Karzai, no

difference. Their key to this is Pakistan. The Chinese have no eyeon turning

Afghanistaninto some Late 20th century Bundesrepublik. They're just there to

get thestuff, pay the hefty toll fee and profit. They have their client

state Pakistankeeping an eye on the country making sure they're OK, nice and

easy.

回复 12 楼：

如果一个共产主义者没做成这件事，为什么其他的共产主义者要去做呢？再加上中国人

，俄罗斯人之前一直在那。塔利班，卡尔扎伊并没有区别。他们在这件事情上的关键是

巴基斯坦。中国人没打算把阿富汗变成现代的联邦共和国。他们去那只是得到原材料，

付很多过路费，然后获利。他们的附庸国巴基斯坦帮他们盯着这个国家，确保这些事情

可行，愉快，容易。



#14 JCR

Problem is the classical approach of asuperior occupying power is "we will

leave you alone but if you resist, wewill crush you"

The western approach (in the view ofAfghans) is more like "we will not crush

you if you resist but we will notleave you alone either"

问题是一个出色占领力量的经典方法是：“我们会不干涉你，但是如果你抵抗，我们就

干掉你”

阿富汗人认为西方的做法更像是“如果你抵抗，我们不会干掉你但是也不会放任不管”



#15 plato

回复12楼：

China has20 million non-Chinese Muslims, and their strategy towards them is

not justkilling and burning. "Hearts and Minds" is a big deal for them,

too.Many Chinese feel the "Hearts and Minds" strategy is unfair. If theyare

still having difficulties controlling these Muslims at home, then I don'tsee

how they can be successful in a different country.

回复 12 楼：

中国有2000万非汉族MSL，而对待他们的政策不是只是威压，怀柔也是的一个主要策

略许多汉族觉得怀柔政策不公平。如果他们在自己国内都不能很好的控制MSL的话，

在别的国家又怎么会成功呢？



#16 subotai

回复15楼：



I spend a significant time every year in aChinese city by the name of

Xi'an.One of Xi'an'snotable features is The Great Mosque built in 742 (110

years after the death ofMohammed). This city has always had a large and

vibrant islamic population. Iam tell you this to make the point that China

has had a long and relativelysuccessful history of cooperation with Muslims.

回复 15 楼：

我每年都在中国一个名叫西安的城市待上一阵子，西安的一个名胜就是公元742年建造

的大QZS（默罕默德逝世后的110年）。这个城市总是有很多充满活力的MSL。我

告诉你这个是为了说明中国拥有很长的且相当成功和MSL和平共处的历史。



It is really more in recent decades that China'sproblem with Muslims has

begun and its really with the extremists more thananything. In addition, its

very difficult to distinguish whether the problemsin Xinjiang are a result

of religion or ethnicity.

真的就在最近的几十年，中国的MSL问题开始凸显，实际上是因为极端主义者而不是

其他原因。另外，真的难以分辨XJ的问题到底是因为宗教问题还是种族问题。



China'sapproach to ethnic groups and religions is similar (if not,

inherited) from theMongols who would allow any religion and belief system to

exist as long as theydid not attempt to thwart the central government or

authorities. These daysthey have become a lot more subtle in terms of how

they react to outragedminorities (buy off the leaders, buy them mosques,

send their kids to get afree education in China,give them Chinese

protection, etc.)

中国对待民族和宗教的态度与蒙古人在其不试图对抗政府和当局的情况下允许任何宗教

信仰体系存在的政策很相似（如果不是，也是有继承性的）。这些年，应对少数民族的

不满时，他们采取更加细致的安抚措施（收买高层，修建QZS，让他们的孩子接受免

费教育，给他们中国护照等等）



#17 plato

回复16楼：

The Muslims minorities had a long andrelatively successful history of

cooperation with the Chinese. However, this isNOT the case in areas where

the Muslims are or were not the minorities. Xi'an is one place wherethe

Muslims are minorities (the city was the heart of Chinese civilization).The

Muslims there had success dealing with the Chinese, not the other wayaround.

The Chinese didn't need to deal with them. It was either my way or

thehighway. Hence, one of the main Chinese strategies, besides "Hearts

andMinds", is to populate the Muslims areas with Chinese.

回复 16 楼：

MSL少数民族有一段很长且相当成功的和汉族和平共处的历史。然而，这在MSL不

是少数族群的的地区并不是事实。西安是一个MSL占少数的地方（这个城市是中华文

明的中心地带）。那的MSL成功的处理与汉族的关系，而不是反过来。汉族不需要处

理与他们的关系。我说什么就是什么。因此，除了怀柔之外，中国人的一项主要策略就

是往MSL聚居区迁入汉族人口掺沙子。



#18 subotai

回复17楼：

Plato, I am not going to get in anotherdebate with you where you provide no

facts and have no personal experience withthe subject at hand. So, please

provide one or the other.

回复 17 楼：

Plato，你没有为你的观点提供手头有的事实和个人经历，我不想在这些地方和你再次

争论。所以，请提供一两个。



#19 plato

回复18楼：

It was not a debate. Your facts are what?and your personal experiences?

I too have walked the small alleywayleading to the "The Great Mosque".

回复 18 楼：

这不是争论。你的事实又是什么？你的个人经历呢？

我走过去大QZS的胡同好多次了。



#20 subotai

回复19楼：

I have lived off and on in Xi'anand Urumqi forthe last 20 years. I know what

I see, experience and hear (and no, I am notChinese).

回复 19 楼：

我在西安和乌鲁木齐断断续续的住了20年。我很清楚我看到了什么，经历了什么，听到

了什么（还有，我不是中国人）



#21 plato

回复20楼：

Well, then we got ourselves an expert here.So, maybe you can share some

facts with us. How many Chinese lived in Urumqi 40 or 50 yearsago? or 20

years ago? What is the rate of growth of Chinese population there?

Why would the Majority Chinese compromisewith a minority group living inside

the heart of China,Xi'an?

回复 20 楼：

好吧，那我们这有一位专家了。所以，或许你可以和我们分享一些事实。40或者50年前

在乌鲁木齐居住的汉族有多少？或者20年前？那的汉族人口增长率是多少？

为什么在中国的心脏地带，西安，主体民族汉族要向少数民族妥协？



#22 Breakfast in Vegas

回复6楼：

Yeah, somehow I think the Chinese will be"clever" enough to pay the right

people, leave the rest alone and notgive a damn about stonings in soccer

stadiums or women learning to read.

回复 6 楼：



是啊，不知何故，我会觉得中国人足够“聪明”把钱给正确的人，把剩下的自己留下，

而不会关心在足球场的石刑或者学习识字的妇女。



#23 Atlantic Friend

Unless it becomes an official part of the US policy toinstall puppet

governments populated with yes-men, or to shake neighboringnations for cash,

this is going to be the case with every intervention...

除非扶植满是应声虫的傀儡政府或者从邻国身上捞钱变成一项美国政治的官方政策，否

则接下来的每次介入这都会发生的…



#24 JRC

回复23楼：

I think it is a mistake to think of apuppet government as some sort of

advantage.

Puppet governments usually wield a lot morepower than expected.

Take Karzai. He was installed by the US and the only legitimization he has

from theAfghan people is a loya Jirga which has mostly changed sides since

then and anelection so faked that even the USonly lukewarmly denies that it

was.

回复 23 楼：

我认为把一个傀儡政权看做某种优势是一个错误。

傀儡政府通常比预想中行使多很多的权力

拿卡尔扎伊做例子，他由美国扶植，他从阿富汗人民那获得权力的唯一合法性是阿富汗

大国民议会，那的大多人从那时起都反叛到对方阵营，选举舞弊如此严重，即使是美国

也只是温和地否定了下舞弊的存在。



Yet his position in respect to the US ispretty secure and he gets away with

a lot, simply because the US has investedso much political capital in him

that dropping him would be a defeat in itself(not to mention the question of

succession).

然而他听从美国的态度使之相当安全，他得到了很多东西，只是因为美国在他身上花费

了那么多的政治资金，抛弃他本身就会是个失败（更不用提继承人的问题了）



The same story was with the southVietnamese, with a lot of east Block

regimes and the USSR and pretty much every suchregime in history.

Those puppet rulers have considerable powerover their supposed overlords

同样的故事发生在南越，许多东方政权，苏联和历史上相当多的这样的政权（译注：

Block不知作何解）

这些傀儡统治者比起他们表面的最高统治者拥有更大的权力



#25 Atlantic Friend

I agree most leaders don't want to admitthat picking course of action X or

helping Y get in power wasn't that good anidea after all, and the more they

support Y, the harder it is to depose him.

我同意大多数领导人不想承认采取行动X或者帮助Y获得权力并不是那么好的一个主意，

他们越是扶持Y，就越难废掉他。



#26 JRC

A good example is Walter Ulbricht whostarted as Stalin's puppet,

successfully resisted destalinization and proddedKhrushev into the whole

Berlin Wall strategy.

He was only deposed when he suddenly ceasedbeing a hard liner in his last

years.

一个很好的例子是瓦尔特?乌布利希（译注：东德建立者之一）开始作为斯大林的傀儡

，然而成功了制抵了斯大林化，刺激赫鲁晓夫采取完整柏林墙的策略。

他只是在最后的几年中身体恶化，才失去实权。



#27 dc_b4.mc

回复2楼：

I know emotionally it's a bit hard to accept.

But, SERIOUSLY?

回复 2 楼：

我知道，感情上，这有点难以接受。

但是，你是认真的吗？



#28 Atlantic Friend

回复26楼：

But didn't he pull that off because heenjoyed support from those Soviet

officials who opposed Mr K's reforms? Anyway,sorry guys, I don't want to

derail the thread with off-topic considerations.

回复 26 楼：

但是，不是因为他从那些反对赫鲁晓夫改革的苏联官员那得到支持他才干成那件事的嘛

？总之，抱歉伙计，我不歪楼。
转自：龙腾网 翻译：福禄寿禧

译文简介:阿富汗，吞噬金钱与鲜血的无底洞-美国和英国在那牺牲了超过2100条生命，

花费了3020亿英镑（5800亿美元）-即将要有回报了。

正文翻译:The money and blood pit that is Afghanistan- where the United

States and Britain have spent more than 2100 lives and ￡302 billion ($580

billion) - isabout to pay a dividend.

But it won't be going to the countrieswhich have made this considerable

sacrifice. The contracts to open up Afghanistan's mineral and fossil-fuel

wealth,and to build the railways that will transport it out of the country,

are beingwon or pursued by China, India, Iran,and Russia.

阿富汗，吞噬金钱与鲜血的无底洞-美国和英国在那牺牲了超过2100条生命，花费了

3020亿英镑（5800亿美元）-即将要有回报了。

但是却不是付给付出了巨大牺牲的国家。开采阿富汗矿物资源和化石燃料，修建可以将

之运出这个国家的铁路线的合同，要被中国，印度，伊朗和俄罗斯赢得了。



The potentially lucrative task ofexploiting Afghanistan's immense mineral

wealth - estimated to be worth around ￡2 trillion, according to the

KabulGovernment - is only in the early stages. But already China and India

in particular are doing dealsand beginning work.

开发阿富汗巨量矿物资源-这些矿产据喀布尔政府称估计价值2万亿英镑-拥有很大潜在

利益，这项工作现在还处于起步阶段。但是尤其是中国和印度正在开展相关工作。



Afghanistan's mineral wealth extends over a huge range of valuable

resources:iron, gold, copper, niobium (used in hardening steel), uranium,

marble, cobalt,mercury, caesium, molybdenum (a metal which can withstand

high temperatures andis used to make various alloys), and other rare earth

minerals. The country hasespecially valuable deposits of lithium, the metal

used in batteries. Indeed, aPentagon official is on record suggesting that

Afghanistancould be "the Saudi  Arabia of lithium

阿富汗矿产中贵重资源种类繁多：铁，金，铜，铌（用于硬化钢铁），铀，大理石，钴

，汞，铯，钼（抗高温金属，用于制造各种合金）和其他稀有的地球矿物。这个国家的

锂资源尤其丰富，这种金属可用于制造蓄电池。实际上，一名五角大楼官员公开宣称阿

富汗堪称“锂资源的沙特阿拉伯”

评论翻译:Debt Owed to China:

$1,159.5 Billion Dollars

Cost of War Since 2001:

$1,313.5 Billion Dollars (Afghanistan$511.5 Billions Dollars)

欠中国的债务：

11595亿美元

2001年至今的战争花销

13135亿美元（阿富汗战争5115亿美元）



#2 Token White Guy

And let China deal with the business whenthe Taliban start hitting their

mineral and supply convoys going in and out ofthe country.

当塔利班在他们进出这个国家的时候袭击他们的矿物运输和补给护卫车队时，让中国自

己处理吧



#3 [RNZE]Sapper

回复2楼：

From the article:

Dr Richard Weitz, senior fellow of theCentre for Political-Military Analysis

said: "From our perspective, China shouldhave done more in terms of

security. From their perspective, they didn't needto; they could free-ride,

we were going to do it anyway. They didn't see anypoint because all they

would do is incur a lot of sacrifice and antagonise theTaleban and the

global terrorist movement, and they'd rather let us incurthat."

And more importantly...

And the Chinese have business practicesthat Western countries ... let's just

say that Chinese generosity towards localofficials (Taliban?) exceeds that

of what Western companies are capable.

文章里的话：

政治军事分析中心高级研究员理查德?韦茨博士说：“以我们的观点看，中国本应该在

安全事务上出力更加多一些。以他们的观点看，并不需要那样做，他们可以自由通行，

反正我们会搞定的。他们觉得没有必要是因为，他们所要做的一切会招致大量牺牲，并

会与塔利班和国际恐怖活动为敌，他们更想让我们承受这些。”

更重要的是...

中国人有做生意的惯例，所以西方国家……还是让我们这么说吧，中国人对当地官员（

塔利班？）出手阔绰的程度远超西方公司。



#4 KoTeMoRe

回复3楼：

The Chinese are not more generous, that's amyth. But they are inclined to

roll with the tide.

"You'll eat with the snake as long asit doesn't bite you and you'll drink

with the ox as long as it doesn't hornyou."

The issue is that the Westerners are tooaccustomed to impose a system

whenever they go. The Chinese buy the system out.

中国人才不是更加慷慨，那只是个传说。但是他们倾向于随机应变。

“蛇不咬你的时候你可以和蛇一起进餐，公牛不顶你的时候你可以和公牛一起喝酒”

问题是西方人不管在任何时候总是太习惯于强推一个体系，而中国人则把整个体系买下

来



#5 ragnarok

Its a shame too for all the sacrificesmade. Americashould be able to at

least secure a few contracts for something here. Thechinese will try to take

as many contracts as posible and run the system theirway without comprimise.

They don't really care for the Islamic way of doingbusiness, their more into

getting things done as fast as they can with as aslittle money they would

perfer to spend. Indiamight do more for PR because of Pakistan,while

Iranwill be their closest financial ally. It surprises me though that

Russiaconsidering its history with Afganistan during the cold war would get

contractsfor mining those minerals as well.

对所有做出的牺牲来说这是个耻辱。美国最后应该在这抢到几个合同。中国人会试图尽

可能多的抢到合同，然后霸道的按他们的方式来运行这个体系。他们才不管伊斯兰式的

经商方式，他们只想用最少的钱尽可能快的把他们的事情办妥。由于巴基斯坦，印度可

能会更加注重公共关系，伊朗会是他们最亲密的金钱上的盟友。令我吃惊的是，考虑到

冷战时和阿富汗的过节，俄罗斯竟然也会获得开矿的合同。



#6 Sootan

回复2楼：

Securing the business, mines and supplylines are easy if you're not into

nation building.

回复 2 楼：

保护商贸，矿山和补给线是很容易的，如果你不参与国家重建的话。



#7 Pukewarm

回复6楼：

and that's what Chinabuilding roads in Pakistanfor

回复 6 楼：

这就是中国在巴基斯坦修建道路的原因



#8 G-AWZT

回复2楼：

Let them figure out how much of a pain inthe azz they are.

回复 2 楼：

让他们尝尝这会有多痛苦。



#9 Tiddy1

As long as the Taleban get kick backs fromwhoever wins the business they

will not interfere. It's a financial world andhas been for years, the

Taleban know this just as much as anyone else does.

只要塔利班从赢得买卖的人那里得到回扣的话，他们就不会干涉了。这是个物质的世界

，很多年了一直都是，就像其他人一样，塔利班也知道。



#10 PeterG

This reminds me of the american study irecently read, where they figured the

US have spent a trillion dollars orso in the last 30 years, securing the

flow of oil from the hormuz strait. China has spent0. And China receives

moreoil from there than the US.

这让我想起了我最近读过的一份美国研究，其中指出美国在最近的30年里花费了1万亿

美元或者差不多的数字来保护经过霍尔木兹海峡的石油运输。中国一分钱没花。而中国

却从那获得了比美国还多的石油。



#11 KoTeMoRe

回复10楼：

China isnot in the business of fighting, but in the business of facilitating

theaforementionned fighting. IE they don't need to "secure" the flow,since

they're the "alternative". Who said apeasement doesn't work?

回复 10 楼：

中国不参与争斗，却促进前面提及的争斗。即他们不需要“保护”运输，因为他们就是

“备选”。谁说绥靖没有效呢？



#12 IconOfEvi

This is the **** that ticks me off

Oh well, if the PRC DOES end up at somepoint down the road invading...the

fking Afghans will wish for us, or even theRussians.

The PRC doesn't **** around with this kindathing.

Lets take a scenario - a town, whileprofessing to be part of the government

and allied to the local foreign army,they lie in reality and are helping the

Taliban. Our strategy? Hearts andMinds. Theirs? Burn the ****ing village

down, possibly with pig grease thrownin so all the fundies will fear getting

denied entry to Heaven.

Guess who'll have gotten **** done in theend?

这是****，气死我了

哦好吧，如果中华人民共和国历史终结而走上了侵略的道路......阿富汗人会来求我们

的，甚至是去求俄罗斯人

中华人民共和国这样的话就不会瞎摆弄了



让我们看这么一个场景-一个小镇，声称自己是政府的人并协助当地的外国军队，但是

事实上却在撒谎，实际支持塔利班。而我们的策略呢？收买人心，他们的？把该死的村

庄烧掉吧，或许可以扔进去猪油去烧，这样所有人就都去不了天堂啦。

猜猜看最后谁会爽？



#13 KoTeMoRe

回复12楼：

If the Commies didn't do it, why wouldother Commies do that? Plus the

Chinese as the Russians have always been there.Taliban, Karzai, no

difference. Their key to this is Pakistan. The Chinese have no eyeon turning

Afghanistaninto some Late 20th century Bundesrepublik. They're just there to

get thestuff, pay the hefty toll fee and profit. They have their client

state Pakistankeeping an eye on the country making sure they're OK, nice and

easy.

回复 12 楼：

如果一个共产主义者没做成这件事，为什么其他的共产主义者要去做呢？再加上中国人

，俄罗斯人之前一直在那。塔利班，卡尔扎伊并没有区别。他们在这件事情上的关键是

巴基斯坦。中国人没打算把阿富汗变成现代的联邦共和国。他们去那只是得到原材料，

付很多过路费，然后获利。他们的附庸国巴基斯坦帮他们盯着这个国家，确保这些事情

可行，愉快，容易。



#14 JCR

Problem is the classical approach of asuperior occupying power is "we will

leave you alone but if you resist, wewill crush you"

The western approach (in the view ofAfghans) is more like "we will not crush

you if you resist but we will notleave you alone either"

问题是一个出色占领力量的经典方法是：“我们会不干涉你，但是如果你抵抗，我们就

干掉你”

阿富汗人认为西方的做法更像是“如果你抵抗，我们不会干掉你但是也不会放任不管”



#15 plato

回复12楼：

China has20 million non-Chinese Muslims, and their strategy towards them is

not justkilling and burning. "Hearts and Minds" is a big deal for them,

too.Many Chinese feel the "Hearts and Minds" strategy is unfair. If theyare

still having difficulties controlling these Muslims at home, then I don'tsee

how they can be successful in a different country.

回复 12 楼：

中国有2000万非汉族MSL，而对待他们的政策不是只是威压，怀柔也是的一个主要策

略许多汉族觉得怀柔政策不公平。如果他们在自己国内都不能很好的控制MSL的话，

在别的国家又怎么会成功呢？



#16 subotai

回复15楼：



I spend a significant time every year in aChinese city by the name of

Xi'an.One of Xi'an'snotable features is The Great Mosque built in 742 (110

years after the death ofMohammed). This city has always had a large and

vibrant islamic population. Iam tell you this to make the point that China

has had a long and relativelysuccessful history of cooperation with Muslims.

回复 15 楼：

我每年都在中国一个名叫西安的城市待上一阵子，西安的一个名胜就是公元742年建造

的大QZS（默罕默德逝世后的110年）。这个城市总是有很多充满活力的MSL。我

告诉你这个是为了说明中国拥有很长的且相当成功和MSL和平共处的历史。



It is really more in recent decades that China'sproblem with Muslims has

begun and its really with the extremists more thananything. In addition, its

very difficult to distinguish whether the problemsin Xinjiang are a result

of religion or ethnicity.

真的就在最近的几十年，中国的MSL问题开始凸显，实际上是因为极端主义者而不是

其他原因。另外，真的难以分辨XJ的问题到底是因为宗教问题还是种族问题。



China'sapproach to ethnic groups and religions is similar (if not,

inherited) from theMongols who would allow any religion and belief system to

exist as long as theydid not attempt to thwart the central government or

authorities. These daysthey have become a lot more subtle in terms of how

they react to outragedminorities (buy off the leaders, buy them mosques,

send their kids to get afree education in China,give them Chinese

protection, etc.)

中国对待民族和宗教的态度与蒙古人在其不试图对抗政府和当局的情况下允许任何宗教

信仰体系存在的政策很相似（如果不是，也是有继承性的）。这些年，应对少数民族的

不满时，他们采取更加细致的安抚措施（收买高层，修建QZS，让他们的孩子接受免

费教育，给他们中国护照等等）



#17 plato

回复16楼：

The Muslims minorities had a long andrelatively successful history of

cooperation with the Chinese. However, this isNOT the case in areas where

the Muslims are or were not the minorities. Xi'an is one place wherethe

Muslims are minorities (the city was the heart of Chinese civilization).The

Muslims there had success dealing with the Chinese, not the other wayaround.

The Chinese didn't need to deal with them. It was either my way or

thehighway. Hence, one of the main Chinese strategies, besides "Hearts

andMinds", is to populate the Muslims areas with Chinese.

回复 16 楼：

MSL少数民族有一段很长且相当成功的和汉族和平共处的历史。然而，这在MSL不

是少数族群的的地区并不是事实。西安是一个MSL占少数的地方（这个城市是中华文

明的中心地带）。那的MSL成功的处理与汉族的关系，而不是反过来。汉族不需要处

理与他们的关系。我说什么就是什么。因此，除了怀柔之外，中国人的一项主要策略就

是往MSL聚居区迁入汉族人口掺沙子。



#18 subotai

回复17楼：

Plato, I am not going to get in anotherdebate with you where you provide no

facts and have no personal experience withthe subject at hand. So, please

provide one or the other.

回复 17 楼：

Plato，你没有为你的观点提供手头有的事实和个人经历，我不想在这些地方和你再次

争论。所以，请提供一两个。



#19 plato

回复18楼：

It was not a debate. Your facts are what?and your personal experiences?

I too have walked the small alleywayleading to the "The Great Mosque".

回复 18 楼：

这不是争论。你的事实又是什么？你的个人经历呢？

我走过去大QZS的胡同好多次了。



#20 subotai

回复19楼：

I have lived off and on in Xi'anand Urumqi forthe last 20 years. I know what

I see, experience and hear (and no, I am notChinese).

回复 19 楼：

我在西安和乌鲁木齐断断续续的住了20年。我很清楚我看到了什么，经历了什么，听到

了什么（还有，我不是中国人）



#21 plato

回复20楼：

Well, then we got ourselves an expert here.So, maybe you can share some

facts with us. How many Chinese lived in Urumqi 40 or 50 yearsago? or 20

years ago? What is the rate of growth of Chinese population there?

Why would the Majority Chinese compromisewith a minority group living inside

the heart of China,Xi'an?

回复 20 楼：

好吧，那我们这有一位专家了。所以，或许你可以和我们分享一些事实。40或者50年前

在乌鲁木齐居住的汉族有多少？或者20年前？那的汉族人口增长率是多少？

为什么在中国的心脏地带，西安，主体民族汉族要向少数民族妥协？



#22 Breakfast in Vegas

回复6楼：

Yeah, somehow I think the Chinese will be"clever" enough to pay the right

people, leave the rest alone and notgive a damn about stonings in soccer

stadiums or women learning to read.

回复 6 楼：



是啊，不知何故，我会觉得中国人足够“聪明”把钱给正确的人，把剩下的自己留下，

而不会关心在足球场的石刑或者学习识字的妇女。



#23 Atlantic Friend

Unless it becomes an official part of the US policy toinstall puppet

governments populated with yes-men, or to shake neighboringnations for cash,

this is going to be the case with every intervention...

除非扶植满是应声虫的傀儡政府或者从邻国身上捞钱变成一项美国政治的官方政策，否

则接下来的每次介入这都会发生的…



#24 JRC

回复23楼：

I think it is a mistake to think of apuppet government as some sort of

advantage.

Puppet governments usually wield a lot morepower than expected.

Take Karzai. He was installed by the US and the only legitimization he has

from theAfghan people is a loya Jirga which has mostly changed sides since

then and anelection so faked that even the USonly lukewarmly denies that it

was.

回复 23 楼：

我认为把一个傀儡政权看做某种优势是一个错误。

傀儡政府通常比预想中行使多很多的权力

拿卡尔扎伊做例子，他由美国扶植，他从阿富汗人民那获得权力的唯一合法性是阿富汗

大国民议会，那的大多人从那时起都反叛到对方阵营，选举舞弊如此严重，即使是美国

也只是温和地否定了下舞弊的存在。



Yet his position in respect to the US ispretty secure and he gets away with

a lot, simply because the US has investedso much political capital in him

that dropping him would be a defeat in itself(not to mention the question of

succession).

然而他听从美国的态度使之相当安全，他得到了很多东西，只是因为美国在他身上花费

了那么多的政治资金，抛弃他本身就会是个失败（更不用提继承人的问题了）



The same story was with the southVietnamese, with a lot of east Block

regimes and the USSR and pretty much every suchregime in history.

Those puppet rulers have considerable powerover their supposed overlords

同样的故事发生在南越，许多东方政权，苏联和历史上相当多的这样的政权（译注：

Block不知作何解）

这些傀儡统治者比起他们表面的最高统治者拥有更大的权力



#25 Atlantic Friend

I agree most leaders don't want to admitthat picking course of action X or

helping Y get in power wasn't that good anidea after all, and the more they

support Y, the harder it is to depose him.

我同意大多数领导人不想承认采取行动X或者帮助Y获得权力并不是那么好的一个主意，

他们越是扶持Y，就越难废掉他。



#26 JRC

A good example is Walter Ulbricht whostarted as Stalin's puppet,

successfully resisted destalinization and proddedKhrushev into the whole

Berlin Wall strategy.

He was only deposed when he suddenly ceasedbeing a hard liner in his last

years.

一个很好的例子是瓦尔特?乌布利希（译注：东德建立者之一）开始作为斯大林的傀儡

，然而成功了制抵了斯大林化，刺激赫鲁晓夫采取完整柏林墙的策略。

他只是在最后的几年中身体恶化，才失去实权。



#27 dc_b4.mc

回复2楼：

I know emotionally it's a bit hard to accept.

But, SERIOUSLY?

回复 2 楼：

我知道，感情上，这有点难以接受。

但是，你是认真的吗？



#28 Atlantic Friend

回复26楼：

But didn't he pull that off because heenjoyed support from those Soviet

officials who opposed Mr K's reforms? Anyway,sorry guys, I don't want to

derail the thread with off-topic considerations.

回复 26 楼：

但是，不是因为他从那些反对赫鲁晓夫改革的苏联官员那得到支持他才干成那件事的嘛

？总之，抱歉伙计，我不歪楼。