中美是长期敌人吗？ [美国媒体]

-------------译者：haleyyen-审核者：路的尽头总是雨茫茫------------



Are China and the United States long-term enemies?

中美是长期敌人吗？


-------------译者：haleyyen-审核者：黎明晖烬------------

[dexed]
More like competitive frenemies I suppose.

我想更像是亦敌亦友的竞争者。

ArgussArkansas
'Rivals' is the right term I think.
“A person or thing competing with another for the same obxtive or for superiority in the same field of activity.”

我觉得用“竞争对手”这个词更准确。
“一个人或物，与另外一方为了同一个目标或同一领域内的优势而彼此竞争。”

DashingSpecialAgentSeattle
I think this is as accurate as we can get. We aren't allies but we aren't enemies either. We're vaguely distrustful of each other and yet do a massive amount of mutually beneficial business with each other.

我认为这是我们能想到的最准确的词了。我们不是同盟也非敌人。我们不信任彼此，却又进行着大量互惠互利的交易。

There is potential to fall on either side of the friend/enemy coin but for now we're propped up by our mutual need of each other and mutual dislike of the others way of governing.

终有一天，中美可能只能成为朋友或者敌人。但是暂时来说，因为共同需要和对于其他统治方式的共同不满，我们还是要彼此扶持。

-------------译者：风轻溟-审核者：路的尽头总是雨茫茫------------

kajeetOklahoma
I wouldn't go so far to say we're 'enemies'. I would say we are rivals.

我还不至于会说我们是“敌人”。我会说我们是对手。

high_sidedon
I don't think either has serious designs on the other's homeland but there are proxies that may put us on opposite sides of armed conflict again.

我不认为两国的任何一方对另一方的家园有严重的企图，但是代理们也许会让我们再次在武装冲突中对立。

WashuOtaku
No both nations need each other economically and adversary.

不，两个国家在经济与对抗上彼此需要。

lightsareonbut
If China remains a totalitarian state yes.
If it becomes what we consider a free country no.

如果中国保持极权主义，是的。
如果它成为我们认可的自由国度，不是。

jamesno26
I don't know about "enemies" but they're certainly rivals. I don't think it'll be on the same level as the Cold War though.

我不知道是不是“敌人”但是它们肯定是对手。不过我不觉得这会和冷战在一个等级。

-------------译者：风轻溟-审核者：龙腾翻译总管------------

DarkCoke
Yes and No. China's short term obxtive is Security and Redemption form the "Century of Humiliation".
Security because China is encircled by US allies such as Japan South Korea Taiwan and increasingly India and Vietnam. Keep in mind that none of these alliances started as a means to oppose China. No one in 1945 could forsee the situation in 2017. They are history's accidents but what China sees is tens of thousands of US troops near its immediate border. They are concerned and to some extent justifiably so. We would be concerned if there were tens of thousands of Chinese troops in Canada Cuba and Mexico.
The second part is the "Century of Humiliation". It refers to the period between 1850 and 1950 when Chinese sovereignty was repeatedly violated by the West Russia and Japan. This is very much part of the Chinese psyche and they want to redeem themselves from it. This explains to some extent the Chinese actions in South China Sea Dispute. China wants to show the world that they can't be kicked around.
I don't know much China wants to displace US from being a Global leader. China doesn't seem too interested in policing outside of their immediate sphere of influence. Neither does China have the extensive system of alliance that America has been blessed with.

是也不是。中国的短期目标是安全和从“百年耻辱”中复兴。
安全是因为中国正在被美国的盟友们包围着，比如日本韩国台湾和越来越成为美国盟友的印度和越南。记住，这些同盟没有一个是从一开始就反华的。没有人能在1945年预见2017年的情况。它们是历史的意外，但是中国看到的是驻扎在它边界不远的成百上千的美国军队。他们在担忧，且某种意义上这是无可非议的。如果有成百上千的中国军队在加拿大古巴和墨西哥的话，我们也会担忧的。
第二部分是“百年耻辱”。它指的是在1850年至1950年间，中国主权不断被西方俄罗斯日本侵犯。这是中国精神的很大一部分，并且他们想要从中挽回自己。这某种程度上解释了中国在南海争议中的行动。中国想向世界表示他们不会任人欺负。
我不知道中国有多想代替美国成为世界老大。中国似乎对自身势力范围外的治安维持不太感兴趣。中国也不像美国那样有那么多盟友。

-------------译者：风轻溟-审核者：装傻~------------

watsupbitchez
Yes.
They don't rant and rave but they wage a low-level war on us economically every second of every day slamming their markets closed while growing rich off of our openness.
They then use the cash for such worthy causes as grabbing land in the Sourh China Sea and threatening American ships that sail there and prop up the Kim regime.
All this cowboy nonsense in the Middle East from the idiocy of Iraq and onward distract us from this challenge

是的。他们没有大喊大叫可是他们每天每一秒都在用我们进行经济上的低等级交兵，狠狠关闭他们的市场，同时利用我们的开放使自己日益富有。
然后他们把钱花在南海抢地，威胁开到那里的美国船只，还有支持金正恩政权这些有价值的事业上。
伊拉克战争以及后来的愚蠢行为让我们身陷中东泥潭而无暇顾及中国这个挑战

non-rhetorical
I agree wholeheartedly. Actually I suspect they do more than prop up the Kim regime. I suspect China aids NK's missile program just to fuck with us knowing that Kim would never be foolish enough to use it on China.
The question with the cowboy nonsense is how do you exit the ME in a face saving way? Our reputation as a trustworthy ally is at stake. If Iraq is in ruins when we leave that's bad.

我全心同意。其实我怀疑他们比支持金正恩政权做得更多。我怀疑中国为了给我们添乱而援助了朝鲜的导弹计划，它明白金正恩绝不会傻到把导弹用在中国身上。
中东泥潭的问题在于你怎样不丢脸地从中东退出？我们作为可信赖的盟友的名声危在旦夕。如果我们离开时伊拉克在废墟中，那就坏了。

-------------译者：风轻溟-审核者：kater1------------

PacSan300California -> Germany
Another reason that I've heard for China propping up NK is fear that NK collapsing would inevitably lead to takeover by South Korea and since SK is a military ally of the US it may potentially lead to US troops right on China's border.

我听说过另外一个中国支撑朝鲜的原因是害怕朝鲜的崩溃会无可避免地导致其被韩国吞并，由于韩国是美国的军事盟友，这可能导致美国军队就驻扎在中国的边界上。

watsupbitchez
They fear hordes of refugees flooding into China and they fear bordering a nation hosting American forces.
They created the mess and now they are stuck with it

他们害怕成群的难民涌入中国，并且他们害怕与一个有美国驻军的国家毗邻。
他们造成了混乱，而现在他们自己无法脱身了

-------------译者：风轻溟-审核者：龙腾翻译总管------------

ClockToeTwinsMassachusetts
Not entirely. China and the US have a pretty warm relationship. There's tension in it when it comes to North Korea human rights abuse or China building islands in the middle of the ocean to expand its borders but for the most part we seem to get along fairly well. If the relationship deteriorates it will most assuredly be China's fault though since they're aggressive towards US allies like the Philippines or Japan.

不完全是。中国与美国的关系挺不错的。 当面对朝鲜侵犯人权， 或者中国在海洋中建造岛屿扩张边境的问题时， 的确存在紧张局势，但是大部分时我们似乎相处得挺不错的。不过如果两国关系恶化，那就几乎无疑是中国的错了，因为他们对待美国的盟友比如菲律宾或日本有侵略性。

Meaniebobeenie89Houston
Capitalism and the free market are both competitive. We don't have anything against China I just think we're competing with eachother in the free market.

资本主义和自由市场都有竞争力。我们没有任何反对中国的东西，我只认为我们在自由市场上互相竞争。