漂亮！超级漂亮的狙击战！记者 vs 美国国务院发言人纽兰

diver18

主流媒体 可不是 这样报道的，搜索基本上都是这类的：
US to China: Why Do You Need an Aircraft Carrier?
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/us-china-aircraft-carrier/story?id=14275241
你完全看不到 我们记者 漂亮的冲锋。
好不容易找到的记录，当然，也得承认，他们对原始记录还是尊重的。
有能力的，或者能借助各类翻译 阅读的，建议读一下记录，比下面的译文 精彩不止 十倍！
http://iipdigital.usembassy.gov/st/english/texttrans/2011/08/20110810182446su0.7947896.html

QUESTION:  China’s first aircraft carrier set sail yesterday for the first time.  Are you concerned this will increase the tension in the region?
MS. NULAND:  Well, I think you know that we have had concerns for some time, and we’ve been quite open about them with regard to the lack of transparency from China regarding its power projection and its lack of access and denial capabilities.  So we want to see more transparency.  We would welcome any kind of explanation that China would like to give for needing this kind of equipment.  And as you know, President Obama and President Hu have stated together that they want a healthy and reliable military-to-military relationship.


QUESTION:  Will this also make the U.S. to more back up your allies in that region in order to make the balance of the military power in Asia Pacific?
MS. NULAND:  I don’t think anybody should question the U.S. commitment to our allies in Asia.


QUESTION:  Can I ask why you would want the Chinese to explain why they want an aircraft carrier?  Can’t they just say, “Because we want it”?  Isn’t that a good enough explanation?
MS. NULAND:  Again, this is part of our larger concern that China is not as transparent as other countries.  It’s not as transparent as the United States about its military acquisitions, about its military budget.  And this causes concern, and we’d –


QUESTION:  Well, what is this –
MS. NULAND:  -- like to have the kind of open, transparent relationship in military-to-military affairs.


QUESTION:  Is this aircraft carrier invisible or something?  I don’t understand.  It’s not difficult.  I mean, it seems it’s pretty hard to hide an aircraft carrier --
MS. NULAND:  But we have not --


QUESTION:  -- unless it’s a miniature model, which I don’t think it is.  So I’m not sure what’s the lack of – you know that they had one, you know that it’s out there sailing around on maneuvers or being tested right now.  What’s not transparent about that?
MS. NULAND:  In our military-to-military relations with many countries around the world, we have the kind of bilateral dialogue where we can get quite specific about the equipment that we have and its intended purposes and its intended movements, et cetera.  We are not at that level of transparency with China that the presidents have said we should have and that we aspire to.  So it’s in that spirit that we make these comments today.
With regard to specifically what we have and haven’t discussed with China on this particular aircraft carrier, I’m going to send you to DOD.


QUESTION:  Historically, I think the State Department has made the point that China’s – the increases in China’s military spending, to the extent that you have visibility into them, are not consistent with its stated ambitions to be a regional power.  And is that – has that language gone away or is that still how you view this?
MS. NULAND:  No.  I think in the larger context, that this was a comment I was making with regard to this particular --

QUESTION:  And then the second thing would be – correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe over the last decade, U.S. military expenditures have increased at a more rapid pace than have Chinese military expenditures.  Right?  I mean, the DOD military – the DOD budget is now somewhere north of $600 billion, I think.  Why should it therefore be so very concerning – why should China’s acquisitions policy and defense spending be such a concern when the United States still enjoys such a massive conventional superiority?  I mean, just to take aircraft carriers, it’s now 14 to 1 as opposed to 14 to 0.
MS. NULAND:  Well, with regard to the specifics in comparing budgets and comparing numbers of carriers, I think I’m going to send you to my colleagues at DOD, lest I get into areas beyond the expertise at this podium.


QUESTION:  Why are you so worried that --
MS. NULAND:  However --


QUESTION:  Yeah.
MS. NULAND:  -- the larger point is one of transparency.  We are prepared to be extremely transparent with regard to U.S. military positions and equipment, and we’d like to have a reciprocal relationship with China, and that’s what our presidents have said we ought to aspire to.  So it’s in that context that we make these comments today with regard to this particular acquisition.   


QUESTION:  Well, are you concerned somehow – I mean, it’s been very – you’ve been very open and very public about your concerns about the tensions in the South China Sea.  Are you concerned at all that this specific acquisition, this carrier, could be used by the Chinese to perhaps enflame those tensions or at least serve as something that would not ease them?
MS. NULAND:  Well, again, I think the Secretary made clear when she was in Asia, and I think that you were with her, what we aspire to in the South China Sea, which is a – to go on to the next step and really try to settle this issue among the countries.
With regard to this particular acquisition, the concern is that, again, we want to have a better understanding of how it might be used, what the intentions are, and that that is the kind of information that would be part of a better, more transparent military-to-military dialogue.


QUESTION:  Well, it just seems to me from what you’re saying that there were – you talked about transparency, but in fact it’s not a lack of transparency; it’s a lack of another word that begins with t-r that you have with the Chinese, and that word would be trust.  You basically don’t trust the Chinese with this kind of equipment.  Is that correct?
MS. NULAND:  Transparency in itself is a confidence builder between nations, so that’s what we’re looking for.  We’re looking to build confidence about each other’s intentions.


QUESTION:  Well, do you trust the Chinese that they will use this specific piece of equipment, but also in a broader sense, its military for good or for easing – or to maintain stability rather than to exACerbate tensions?
MS. NULAND:  Again, you’re getting me into DOD’s territory here with regard to balance of forces and how they see ships deployed, et cetera.


QUESTION:  Well, it seems --
MS. NULAND:  I’m making the broader point that at the level of relations that we aspire to with China, we ought to be able to be maximally transparent about our military budgets and our military acquisitions, our military endeavors.


QUESTION:  Okay.  So thus far, you have tried to engage the Chinese on this transparency and they have shot you down?
MS. NULAND:  No.  We have a dialogue.  Is it as strong as we’d like it to be?  No.  But I think that’s --


QUESTION:  But that’s not for your – from – for your lack of trying?
MS. NULAND:  Again --


QUESTION:  You tried, and they have said no.  Correct?
MS. NULAND:  And our presidents have expressed an interest in improving this aspect of the relationship.  With regard to the actual implementation of that, it’s a DOD military-to-military --


QUESTION:  Fair enough.  But considering the fact that you don’t – you’re still calling for this transparency, do you believe President Hu when he says that he agrees with President Obama that there should be this kind of relationship?
MS. NULAND:  We want to see this aspect of the relationship improve, and we’re going to continue to work on it.
Please.


QUESTION:  Can I just follow up?  Actually, Chinese official already made a clear statement that this aircraft is for training and research purpose only.  Do you trust this statement?
MS. NULAND:  Again, I don’t think I can do any better than what I said repeatedly, which is that we want to have a maximally transparent military-to-military relationship, and we would welcome formal discussion with the Chinese, a formal explanation from the Chinese about this particular piece of equipment.


QUESTION:  Can I just – one more?  Have you asked the Chinese for a formal explanation?  Has there been a formal request to them for a formal explanation?
MS. NULAND:  Oh, again, that’s a good DOD question because if it – if there were to be one, it would be in military-to-military channels.


QUESTION:  But it doesn’t come – it wouldn’t come through the State Department at all?
MS. NULAND:  No.  It would be a military-to-military issue.


=====
ps. 我这是 先有蛋 后有鸡，看到人民的，才找到的 英文。
=====
美国国务院发言人纽兰8月10日在例行新闻发布会上表示，美国对中国发展航母一直表示关切，美国需要看到更多的透明度。

　　常言道，会说的不如会听的。读一读纽兰的答问记录，不难感受到华盛顿的霸气和无理——

　　记者：美国为什么要求中国就拥有航母进行解释，难道中方仅仅说一句“因为我们需要航母”，这难道不已经是很好的解释了吗？

　　纽兰：这只是美国认为中国在更大范围内不似其他国家那样透明的关切的一部分。中国在军事新装备、军事预算等方面，不如美国透明，这引起美方关切。美方乐于见到双方在军事事务上有着公开、透明的关系。

　　记者：难道中国的航母是隐形，或是微型的吗，你知道它就在那里，对此有何透明不透明可言？

　　纽兰：在美国与许多国家军事关系中，通过双边对话可以很具体地了解军事装备及其用途、可能的部署等。但与中国的关系未到这一透明层级，而两国元首表示我们应该如此，我们也希望如此。

　　记者：在过去十年，美国军费开支增长速度快于中国。美国国防预算在6000亿美元以上。在美国仍享有如此超强优势的情形下，为何美国对中国装备政策、防御开支如此关切？仅以航母为例，以前是14比0，现在不过是14比1。

　　纽兰：至于具体的军费比较和航母数量的比较，我想你最好去问我在国防部的同事。

　　偏执背后缺乏道义的支撑，左支右绌自然在所难免。
http://news.xinhuanet.com/mil/2011-08/12/c_121848401.htm

风动心静

-------呵呵，既然纽兰连中美双方具体的军费比较和航母数量的比较都搞不清楚，还来扯啥“透明”？

wang_xin2075

还是有不少没有翻译，看得我们不得其意，谁能翻出来？

heracules

有意思啊，mark，回去翻译

麦天

已收藏
嘿嘿~

mummy

第一艘是用来训练的，第一艘国产的是用来试验的（也是第二艘），第三艘是用来取代第一艘的，第四艘是用来维护地区安全的，第五艘是制衡太平洋军力的，第六艘是印度洋军事平衡的，第七艘是保护世界和平的。

logo0

二战时英勇的美国军人己消失、死去了；
现在美国兵不拥有两代武器技术优势，五倍的安全防护、十倍的后勤补给就不敢打仗了！
美国人的脆弱的心志，他们过舒服日子太久了！

st_aster

二战时美军也不英勇。。。

吴钩1

很多人不懂，美军的最大优势是有十年磨一剑的恒心和耐力，这才是中国最该学习的！

coldwarj

吴钩1 发表于 2011-8-13 12:06
很多人不懂，美军的最大优势是有十年磨一剑的恒心和耐力，这才是中国最该学习的！ ...

美军有真功夫，吹牛吓人的真功夫尤其强

bxxxwyj

美国是最不要脸的。

我拓跋流王血

当然，也得承认，他们对原始记录还是尊重的

我拓跋流王血

有哪位能全文翻译下，华盛顿方言不会啊

Jigong

MS. NULAND, you are extremely good in beating around the bush and going round and round in a circle!

回首向左

帝国主义的傲慢与偏见

diver18

现在 2011。8。15 11：10am，这已是 新华 的 头版头条！

我就奇怪了，分没给加，版没给高亮，四月。。。 以下省略十二字。。。
=====
在8月10日的美国国务院例行新闻发布会上，中国航母成了一个主要话题。在十来个问答回合中，美国国务院上任不久的发言人纽兰女士左支右绌。话锋腾挪间，这位发言人不仅因逻辑混乱遭到穷究，且不经意间再次凸显根深蒂固的偏执。

　　纽兰在这番问答中有三个关键词。

　　首先为“关切”。话题是因中国航母平台8月10日进行出海航行试验而起。纽兰上来就说，美国对中国发展航母一直表示关切，“这只是美国认为中国在更大范围内不似其他国家那样透明的关切的一部分”。

　　纽兰在表达美方“关切”的同时，丝毫没有提及中国的关切，这便陷于偏颇。中国有着长1.8万多公里的海岸线。历史上的中国积贫积弱，在西方的船坚炮利面前饱经屈辱。就在不久前，美国的航空母舰还在中国的家门口耀武扬威。中国的国家安全、领海主权和海洋权益不能不是中国武装力量的极大关切。在此之前，联合国五个常任理事国中，唯独中国没有航母。而美国航母数量则占全球航母总数一半以上。中国发展航母本是题中应有之义，刚一起步，便“被关切”，是不是有些过于霸道？！难怪纽兰此番“关切”当场遭到诘问：在过去十年，美国军费开支增长速度快于中国。美国国防部预算在6000亿美元以上。在美国仍享有如此超强优势的情形下，为何美国对中国装备政策、防御开支如此关切？

其次是“透明”。纽兰不厌其烦地说，美国一直公开认为中方在军力投射等方面缺乏透明，并称中国在这些方面不如美国透明。美国需要看到更多的透明度。在这一问题上，纽兰女士老调重弹，很有些以偏概全的味道。近年来，中国以国防白皮书等形式系统阐述安全形势、国防政策、人民解放军的现代化建设、武装力量运用、国防动员和后备力量建设、军事法制、国防科技工业、国防经费、建立军事互信、军控与裁军等内容的做法得到普遍好评。加拿大驻华大使馆国防武官马克曾就此表示，“在我看来毫无疑问的是，中国正在努力增加军事透明度的水平。”中国国防部发言人于7月27日宣布首艘航母相关信息，中国如此坦然地公布航母信息，是增进太平洋地区大国之间军力透明的积极一步。纽兰的老调再次遭到记者奚落：难道中国的航母是隐形，或是微型的吗？你知道它就在那里，对此有何透明不透明可言？反过来说，当美国航母在中国近海游弋、美国高空侦察机屡屡在中国沿海地区抵近飞行时，是否曾经很“透明”地通知中方了呢？

　　再次是“解释”。纽兰称，美方欢迎中方就需要航母这一装备做出任何解释。后又希望中方就这艘航母做出正式解释。中方发言人早就指出，中国利用一艘废旧的航母平台进行改建，用于科研和训练。中国研究航母发展，是为了增加维护国家安全和维护和平的能力。中国坚持走和平发展道路。中国的国防政策不会改变，中国近海防御的战略也没有发生改变。说得如此真切，美国还想再要什么“正式解释”？纽兰的这一要求再次遭到记者当场反驳：中方说“因为我们需要航母”，这难道不已经是很好的解释了吗？

　　其实，倒是美国国务院发言人需要解释一下，在所有这些遭到揶揄的言辞背后，到底泛着怎样迂腐的思维定势。

火神来求火

diver18 发表于 2011-8-15 11:10
现在 2011。8。15 11：10am，这已是 新华 的 头版头条！

我就奇怪了，分没给加，版没给高亮，四月。。。  ...

美国人就那样了，你又能拿他怎么样？让他说去吧，回头多造几个航母，多搞点黑丝才是王道。等到什么时候解放军能和美国大兵一样到处都有基地，全球可以部署了，那才是平等对话的时候。

jack_j11

吴钩1 发表于 2011-8-13 12:06
很多人不懂，美军的最大优势是有十年磨一剑的恒心和耐力，这才是中国最该学习的！ ...

十年磨一剑，你是指阿富汗战争吗？这种恒心和耐力的确令人佩服！前苏联打了十年挺不住只好撤军了，美军也打了十年了，虽然隔三差五的死几个或几十个大兵，不过依然在坚持。这种国际主义精神值得学习。

diver18

jack_j11 发表于 2011-8-15 13:47
十年磨一剑，你是指阿富汗战争吗？这种恒心和耐力的确令人佩服！前苏联打了十年挺不住只好撤军了，美军也 ...

我知道 前苏联打了很久，也知道美军也打了很久，但你这么一算：
哦，美军已经打了十年了，从强到虚，可能要 弱 了。。。

吴钩1

jack_j11 发表于 2011-8-15 13:47
十年磨一剑，你是指阿富汗战争吗？这种恒心和耐力的确令人佩服！前苏联打了十年挺不住只好撤军了，美军也 ...

其实美国染指阿富汗是败笔，美、苏都过于看重阿富汗的战略位置，小看阿富汗人民的力量了，我说美军有十年磨一剑的恒心和耐力，主要是指美国人一旦认定谁是敌人就不会改变，一切工作都围绕这个核心，一直要打倒为止，甚至打倒后都不罢手(如前苏联现俄罗斯)，这样的敌人是可怕的，中国人一定要清楚这一点，不然会死得很难看！