超级军网美国军坛讨论：美国花钱打仗，中印却得到战利品？
来源：百度文库 编辑：超级军网 时间：2024/04/29 18:20:47
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。
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。
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。
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。
What I don't like in the article is theimplied conclusion that the "spoils of war" should go to the US and UK. I've heard the same argumentsmade about Iraqwhen there were the no-bid reconstruction contracts and when oil contracts werefinally granted to non-US firms.
我不喜欢文中暗示的论调-“战利品”应该属于美国和英国。我也听到过关于伊拉克战争的类似争论，那的重建合同不采取竞标的方式，石油合同最终也被非美国公司拿走了。
And what rubs me the wrong way here isthat, well, this isn't supposed to be a victory OVER Iraqis or OVER Afghans,with the victors deciding who'll get the leg and who'll get the breast. This issupposed to be a victory FOR Iraqis and FOR Afghans, who after that aresupposed to be part of free nations, which includes freedom to sign contractswith whoever they please.
我感到生气的地方是，这并不应该被当做是我们战胜了伊拉克人或者阿富汗人，然后胜利者决定谁分得大腿肉，谁分得胸脯肉。这应该被当做是为了伊拉克人和阿富汗人的胜利，这些人之后可以活在一个自由的国度里，凭自己意愿决定想和谁签合同。
#29 JRC
Sorry, I put in the Ulbricht ensemble justto demonstrate that even in the most authoritarian societies, such people havepower over their masters and can in fact dictate their policy if they playtheir cards right.
With the US with its pluralistic system,this is far easier. Anyone can buy a few lobbyists in Washington and get access to the Hill.
抱歉，我举出乌布利希只是为了证明即使是在最独裁的社会，如果出牌合理，这类人依然比他们的老板有权力，可以实际上推行自己的政策。
对美国和其多元的体制来说，这更简单了。任何人都可以在华盛顿花钱收买几个说客然后进入美国国会。
#30 subotai
回复21楼：
You can get all those facts from wikipediaand Google just like anyone else (and I doubt you had even heard of the citybefore I mentioned it). So I will spare you the basic information. The rate ofgrowth is not the right measure to look at the place. Pace of development andmodernization is a much better indicator (and I am not aware of any wellestablished metrics for that). 20 years ago you would have been hard pressed tofind a building over 10 stories and a lot of the economic activity took placein bazaars. Today, tall buildings are common as well as some very modernarchitecture and plenty of traditional retail and Chinese department stores.
回复 21 楼：
你可以和他其他人一样从维基百科和谷歌上得到所有的那些事实（我怀疑在我提到它之前你都没有听说过这个城市）。我会告诉你最基本的信息。人口增长率并不是看待这个地方的正确方式。发展和现代化的步伐是个更好的指标（我并不知道有没有量化的标准）。20年前，经济拮据，你很难有超过十层的建筑物，大部分经济活动都在市集进行。现在，高大的建筑很常见，一些非常现代化的建筑物，很多传统的零售商还有中国的百货商店也很常见。
In years past their was definitely a largerUighur presence felt. These days they are a lot more Han as well as Uzbeks,Russians and Kazakhs around. Seeing more Han in Urumqi I don't believe is a governmentprogram. Like anywhere else people saw an economic opportunity and moved tostart business and trade. I have not found anybody who moved through someofficial program or who was paid to do so. Same with the rest of the peoplethat have moved in. Its simple capitalism and free flow of goods and people.
过去，WZ人的存在感更大一点。现在，周围多了很多汉族人，也有乌兹别克人，俄罗斯人和哈萨克人。乌鲁木齐出现更多的汉族人我认为并不是政府的政策。就像其他地方一样，人们看到商机，过来做生意而已。我还没发现有人是通过官方项目或者是被付钱搬迁到这里。和其他搬到这里的人相同，只是符合资本规律，人和货物的自由流动而已。
As for why would the Chinese compromise?Who says its compromise? When the muslims first arrived in Xi'anvia the silk road and when Xi'anwas the capital it was for diplomacy and economic reasons. Both sides saw anopportunity to create and sustain trade routes.
至于为什么汉族要妥协？谁说这是妥协？当西安还是首都时，MSL通过丝绸之路第一次到达西安是为了外交和经济原因。两边都看到了开辟商路的机遇。
Why do they do it today? Economics andsecurity, pure and simple. If there is one thing China has learned over thelast 30 years its that if you keep people happy in the wallet and don't touchtheir religion, you can do just about everything you want.
他们今天为什么也这么做？经济和安全考量，简单而纯粹。如果过去的30年中国学会了一件事情的话，那就是让人民富足，别干涉他们的信仰，你就可以做你想做的任何事了。
#31 plato
回复30楼：
Well, I got to go out. So, let me justburst your bubble by saying this. I never heard about the city, but I have been there ：）
回复 30 楼：
好吧，我得出去了。为了打破你的幻觉，我就这么说吧，我没听过这座城市，但是我到过那。：）
#32 Iceman6MM
回复16楼：
I would argue that this would be true formost of the world and not just China.
回复 16 楼：
我想说，这对全世界大多数国家都是正确的，不仅是中国。
#33 [RNZE]Sapper
Some random thoughts from me. Apologies ifI don't quote you when I'm addressing your comment.
我的一些凌乱的想法。抱歉，我评论你的发言时可能没有点“引用”
Firstly, I think the Chinese-Muslimcooperation is both ways, but heavily in favor of the Chinese. China will allow tremendous amount of leeway tothe Muslims as long as they don't threaten China's core interests. The Chinesetend to favor bribes over hard application of force. But they will use hardapplication of force as a part of the bribe to entice you. What Talibancommander will say no to say, I don't know, 10 million dollars, plus free reinin his area? If he's a real religious hardliner, then perhaps his deputy will bemore willing to cooperate, and a nice drone strike could just get him thatpromotion. You compare that price with the cost of "pacifying" thatarea. 10 million might just be chump change.
首先，我从两者各自的角度看待中国人-MSL共处问题，但是很认同汉族的。中国会给MSL很大的回旋余地只要他们不威胁中国的核心利益。比起使用暴力，中国人更愿意用收买的方式。但是他们也把冷酷的暴力手段来作为收买方法的一部分。塔利班指挥官会说什么呢，我不知道，或许1000万美元外加在他地盘自由活动的权利？如果他是一个真正的宗教极端者，那么或许他的副手会更愿意合作，一个漂亮的无人机攻击会促使他那么做。你把这个价格和平定那个地区的代价一比，1000万美元可能便宜死了。
Secondly. China is and always will be a landpower. They will never be able to, nor I feel, want to challenge the USN on thehigh seas. What they want is to reopen the Silk Route into Europe.Why ship through the Indian Ocean when they can go through Afghanistan?High speed freight rails, in my opinion, is the future.
其次，中国现在和将来都是陆地力量。他们绝不会，我感觉也不会，想要在公海挑战美国海军。他们想要的是重新开启通往欧洲的丝绸之路。如果能走阿富汗，为什么还要走印度洋呢？在我看来，高速货运列车会是未来趋势。
China isgeared towards manufacturing. There is no shame in pushing levers to makerubber dog sh!t. The fact that the west think that's a job beneath us is what'scausing our decline. The mineral wealth of the Eurasian continent is enormous.And as a manufacturing giant, they are eying that up. Because the future of China is notdepended on any lofty human rights ideals, it's their ability to access thatmineral wealth and therefore sustain their production outputs.
中国适合制造业。去制造橡胶做的狗屎也一点不丢人。西方认为那比我们的工作低级，正是这种想法导致了我们的衰落。欧亚大陆的矿物资源储量巨大。作为制造业巨人，他们对其虎视眈眈。因为中国的未来不是靠什么崇高的人权理想，而是靠他们得到矿产资源然后维持他们产品出口的能力。
Again, my $0.02NZD only.
又一次，我只剩0.02新西兰元了。
#34 Toddy1
回复33楼：
So why then is the Chinese governmentpaying factory workers more money to stay at home and concentrate onAgriculture?
回复 33 楼：
那么，为什么中国政府要给工厂工人补贴更多的钱让他们呆在家乡，专注农业生产？
#35 [RNZE]Sapper
回复34楼：
So there's food to eat? Maybe? Factory jobspays a lot more than working on a farm. I'm not surprised that they need torealign incentives. What I meant by that is China is not a "valueadding" country. Simply because they can't. Your mineral needs aredifferent if you're "value adding"' than if you're"manufacturing".
回复 34 楼：
这样做就有食物可吃？或许呢？在工厂工作比务农挣得多得多。我不奇怪他们需要改进奖励措施。我那么说的意思是中国不是一个“增值”国家。只是因为他们没那个能力。如果你是“增值”国家，你的矿物需求和你是“生产”国家时是不同的。
#36 IconOfEvi
回复28楼：
You put the point very well, and I admireit AF.
你的观点很好，我很同意，AF。
However, what irks me is not even a tokencontract going to us as a gesture of support. Its not the resources Im soworried about, its that their allocations show how they feel about us. Frankly,it was this and the similar result in Iraq that made me bitter aboutdelivering freedom to nations.
然而，使我烦恼的是，连一份表现支持姿态的象征性合同也没给我们。我担心的不是资源，而是他们的做法表明了对我们的态度。坦白说，正是伊拉克的同样或者类似的结果让我对给别国送去自由感到痛苦。
Maybe George Washington was right afterall...meh I don't even know anymore. We didn't take a firm hand required tobring a place like Afghanistanfully into modernisation, and we didn't embrace them as tightly as a truenation building effort would necessitate. As a result...well no wonder this issuch apathy.
或许乔治.华盛顿才是对的…我都不会了。我们没有采取强有力的手段让阿富汗这样的地方实现现代化，我们也没有如真正建立一个国家的所需付出的努力那样紧紧地拥抱他们。结果…也无怪乎这么冷淡了
#37 Herry’s Fork
Good article and very true.
Somehow China was able to be against theIraq War and Pro-Saddam, and still manage to scoop up some major oil contractsfrom the New Iraq Gov.
If you bribe everyone in the game, and thensome, you are bound to come out on the winning side.
好文章，很真实。
不明白，中国反对伊拉克战争，支持萨达姆，却依然能从新伊拉克政府那抢到一些大的石油合同。
如果你收买了游戏的所有参与者，然后是其中（剩下的）一些，你最后一定会是胜利的一方。
#38 twinblade
回复5楼：
Well it might be totally possible thatIndian, Chinese and Russian companies can offer better deals because they don'thave to spend that much on transportation ? After all the product has to travelonly 2000-3000 miles to reach a factory in Indiaor China and half way acrossthe globe to reach North America.
回复 5 楼：
可能完全可能，印度，中国和俄罗斯公司可以提供更好的交易条件因为他们不需要在运输上花费那么多钱？毕竟，所有的产品运到印度或者中国的工厂只需要2000-3000公里，而运到北美需要穿越半个地球。
#39 Pukewarm
transport by sea is the cheapest logistic,the cost to transport minerals to port and ship it to Europe/US might actuallybe cheaper than transporting all the way on land roads into China/Indiacost isnot the issue, US is already funding everything
海运是最便宜的物流方式。把矿产运到港口然后走海路到欧洲/美国可能比全程陆路运到中国/印度花的更少。费用不是问题，美国已经在为所有东西买单了。
#40 Toddy1
回复35楼：
This used to be the case, its generallyswings and roundabouts. I think it's a myth though to purely think of China as amanufacturing country as opposed to a production company. The Weternisation ofChina is also adding to the costs of producing in Chinawhich is why many UScompanies are looking to Mexicoas an alternative. The days of going to China for a super cheap deal arequickly becoming a thing of the past.
回复 35 楼：
以前是这样，现在要改变了。我认为单纯的认为中国是一个制造业国家而不把她当成一个生产公司是不现实的。中国的西化进程也让中国的生产成本上升，这就是为什么许多美国公司把墨西哥当做替代者。去中国做廉价贸易的时代要成为历史了。
#41 fiorellabel
回复39楼：
Fact is that Afganistan is a landlockedcountry and it actually confines withy both Iran,Chinaand throught asian former soviet republic Russia/CIS.
It is a sad but natural thing that thosenations would in the end have to profit from foreign blood, yet they was alwaysbeen there(Iran and india even centuries before the birth of Jesus) and theyare here to stay meanwhile USA is thousand of miles away from EVERYTHING exceptCanada, Mexico and Cuba.
回复 39 楼：
事实是阿富汗是一个内陆国家，实际上被伊朗，中国和亚洲的前苏联加盟共和国/独联体所包围。
很不幸但是是命中注定的事情是，这些国家最后不得不应付外族，他们以前一直在那（伊朗和印度甚至公元前几世纪就在了），他们也要一直在那，而美国除了加拿大，墨西哥和古巴，离所有的国家都有几千公里远。
#42 KoTeMoRe
回复36楼：
Because that worked so well for the Sovietsand their almost 30 year attempt to change Afghanistan, including an almostdecade old war.
回复 36 楼：
因为对苏联人和他们将近30年试图改变阿富汗的的努力，包括一次接近十年的老式战争，来说，那很有效果
回复40楼：
The cost of a Chinese workers as forGDP/cap are still lower at une third(it's at 5000+ USD vs Mex 15000+ USD).Nonwithstanding the fact that the Mexican exodus came cuncumitantly with theChinese growth as the same companies that "are" interested by Mexico,fled it under the strain of the Maquiladora policies. The US companies were first in Mexico and found a cheaper (and safer)alternative in China.
At the end there's a lot of have nots inthe World with the adequate rationalization, they could replace the Chinese ifthe cost was attractive.
对GDP来说中国的劳动力成本依然很低，大概是三分之一（5000+美元VS墨西哥15000+美元）。事实是随着中国的发展，原来被墨西哥吸引的企业在美墨联合工厂政策的压力从墨西哥逃离。美国公司先去的墨西哥，然后中国才成为了更廉价的替代者。
最后，世界上有许多一无所有的国家有充分可能性的，如果价钱更有吸引力的话，他们可能替代中国人。
看来美国群众们对于中国内部以及发展前景很有自己一套理解
大多数人还是很理性的
呵呵，井底之蛙！
不得不承认，这些美国网民的水平算是很不错的
让中国自己处理吧
比起脚盆和WW ，美帝的网友倒是比较清醒。
清醒的MD人还是有的啊
有些美国人似乎觉得 中国人和塔利班打交道的时间比他们短似的。。。
这些评论完全可以作为JY打脸贴，就看JY们能不能理解了
五大流氓，利益均沾。美国佬不明白？
因为中国人在几千年前就明白征服世界是不可能的
同鬼子和棒子粪青网民相比，美国网民确实要相对理智不少，这也是美国为何世界第一的基本原因。希望我天朝国民有朝一日也能这样。
果然MD军坛网民素质高于我等，真是惭愧~（希望不是个例就是了…………………………）
看了MD网民关于各宗教相处的观点，还是有一些道理的
总的来说用来和谐的成本，还是比征讨便宜太多
总的来说用来和谐的成本，还是比征讨便宜太多
Battery 发表于 2012-3-31 10:49 ![]()
不得不承认，这些美国网民的水平算是很不错的
比印度，甚至国内许多论坛，是水平高了不少！
不得不承认，这些美国网民的水平算是很不错的
比印度，甚至国内许多论坛，是水平高了不少！
绿林奸汉 发表于 2012-4-1 11:05 ![]()
比印度，甚至国内许多论坛，是水平高了不少！
不是许多论坛，是美国人的整体素质就是比咱们强，这点是事实，就是台湾日本的论坛除去讨论政治的，也都素质不错，国内的论坛成了国人发泄情绪的场所。。。
比印度，甚至国内许多论坛，是水平高了不少！
不是许多论坛，是美国人的整体素质就是比咱们强，这点是事实，就是台湾日本的论坛除去讨论政治的，也都素质不错，国内的论坛成了国人发泄情绪的场所。。。
西凉河醋鱼 发表于 2012-4-1 13:39 ![]()
不是许多论坛，是美国人的整体素质就是比咱们强，这点是事实，就是台湾日本的论坛除去讨论政治的，也都素 ...
整体？
土鳖整体有15亿，论平均经济水平在世界上都是中等偏下；
要说顶上那3亿，余以为和美帝那三亿比，还是勉强可以望其项背的。
当然，最顶上那1000万人的素质，美帝绝对傲视群雄。
PS.发泄是网络现实功能之一。
不是许多论坛，是美国人的整体素质就是比咱们强，这点是事实，就是台湾日本的论坛除去讨论政治的，也都素 ...
整体？
土鳖整体有15亿，论平均经济水平在世界上都是中等偏下；
要说顶上那3亿，余以为和美帝那三亿比，还是勉强可以望其项背的。
当然，最顶上那1000万人的素质，美帝绝对傲视群雄。
PS.发泄是网络现实功能之一。
有谁逼他们去打了？
兔子只是学MD当年的成功之道而已，“门户开放，利益均沾”，你来踹门负责杀，咱来造棺材负责埋。