新足迹

 找回密码
 注册

精华好帖回顾

· Hammer的狗生片段(Hammer的同居生活) (2009-12-12) 碧螺春 · 澳洲各种地板分类介绍--装修实用贴--17楼新增地毯分类介绍 (2009-9-16) canyon
· 安居乐业之找工记 (2006-5-15) sail · 复活节出游踏秋----绕大蓝山一圈---探溶洞/摘蘑菇/:赏秋叶<全文完> (2013-4-5) 微服出巡
Advertisement
Advertisement
楼主:astina

[中国大陆] 军委副主席张又侠:中国承诺通过对话解决海事纷争 [复制链接]

发表于 2024-4-22 18:56 来自手机 |显示全部楼层
此文章由 dasheng 原创或转贴,不代表本站立场和观点,版权归 oursteps.com.au 和作者 dasheng 所有!转贴必须注明作者、出处和本声明,并保持内容完整
一个军委副主席说了有啥用,不定哪天被消失
Advertisement
Advertisement

2012年度奖章获得者 2013年度奖章获得者

发表于 2024-4-22 19:46 |显示全部楼层
此文章由 dootbear 原创或转贴,不代表本站立场和观点,版权归 oursteps.com.au 和作者 dootbear 所有!转贴必须注明作者、出处和本声明,并保持内容完整
张又侠:中方对蓄意侵权将正当维权 对无理挑衅将据理反制

西太平洋海军论坛第19届年会在山东青岛开幕,中央军委副主席张又侠出席并致辞。

他说,5年前,国家主席习近平在青岛提出构建海洋命运共同体重要理念,为建设和平、繁荣、美丽的海洋提供了战略引领和中国方案。

中国军队高举合作共赢旗帜,同各国海军不断深化交流交往。

中方将以更加积极开放的姿态投身国际军事合作,谱写推动世界和平发展的新篇章。

张又侠说,中方一贯坚持同直接当事国友好协商解决海上争端,但对蓄意侵权将依法正当维权,对无理挑衅将坚决据理反制。中方不惹事、也决不怕事,中国军队将坚决捍卫祖国统一和国家利益。
仰望星空:南风车星系M83
M63南风车星系,在长蛇座,直径12万光年,距离地球一千五百万光年,是南半球看到最明亮和最近的棒旋星系之一。图中还看到距离我们22亿光年的PGC 88914星系。

发表于 2024-4-22 19:50 来自手机 |显示全部楼层
此文章由 Mandarin1 原创或转贴,不代表本站立场和观点,版权归 oursteps.com.au 和作者 Mandarin1 所有!转贴必须注明作者、出处和本声明,并保持内容完整
腊肉当初说的更好听

发表于 2024-4-22 20:10 来自手机 |显示全部楼层
此文章由 xiwu 原创或转贴,不代表本站立场和观点,版权归 oursteps.com.au 和作者 xiwu 所有!转贴必须注明作者、出处和本声明,并保持内容完整
陆xun 发表于 2024-4-22 14:15
在中国,除了习总亲自说,任何人说的任何话都不管用,分分钟变成反党反人民的公敌,外加还可能变成历史文件 ...

这正是台海无战事的关键, 因为习总自知不懂打仗,又不放心别人打仗.

2019年度勋章

发表于 2024-4-22 20:21 |显示全部楼层
此文章由 superdigua 原创或转贴,不代表本站立场和观点,版权归 oursteps.com.au 和作者 superdigua 所有!转贴必须注明作者、出处和本声明,并保持内容完整
foralemon 发表于 2024-4-22 17:51
请勿把通过一个随便什么阿猫阿狗法案称之为修宪。你这2010和2011之错是小错,故意把通过法案叫做修宪才是 ...

你怎么知道我“试图误导人”,而不是把法案看成了修宪?

算了,就这样吧。
舆论自由意味着容忍自己不喜欢的言论的存在。
我的观点当然可能是错误的。可以拉黑,无权屏蔽。

发表于 2024-4-22 20:45 来自手机 |显示全部楼层
此文章由 idris 原创或转贴,不代表本站立场和观点,版权归 oursteps.com.au 和作者 idris 所有!转贴必须注明作者、出处和本声明,并保持内容完整
robin_ld 发表于 2024-4-22 16:23
“There would be no extension of NATO’s jurisdiction for forces of NATO one inch to the east,” M ...

Nov 2014 - 27 Feb 2024
JAN        FEB        MAR
Previous capture        22        Next capture
2021        2022        2023
NATO Logo
Topics
NATO-Russia relations: the facts
Last updated: 27 Jan. 2022 11:26
EnglishFrenchRussianUkrainian
Since Russia began its aggressive actions against Ukraine, Russian officials have accused NATO of a series of threats and hostile actions. This webpage sets out the facts.




MYTHS


NATO as a "threat"
Claim: NATO's presence in the Baltic region is dangerous
Claim: NATO missile defence threatens Russian security
Claim: NATO is aggressive and a threat to Russia
Claim: NATO enlargement threatens Russia
Promises and pledges
Claim: NATO nuclear sharing and nuclear exercises violate the Non-Proliferation Treaty
Claim: NATO's enhanced forward presence violates the NATO-Russia Founding Act?
Claim: NATO promised Russia it would not expand after the Cold War
NATO's Cooperation with Russia
Claim: By suspending practical cooperation with Russia, NATO undermines security
NATO enlargement
Claim: Russia has the right to demand a guarantee that Ukraine and Georgia will not join NATO
Claim: NATO has bases all around the world
NATO and its attitude to Russia
Claim: NATO whips up 'hysteria' over Russia's exercises
Claim: NATO is a U.S. geopolitical project
Claim: NATO has tried to isolate or marginalise Russia
Claim: NATO should have been disbanded at the end of the Cold War
NATO's operations
Claim: NATO's operation in Afghanistan was a failure
Claim: NATO's operation over Libya was illegitimate
Claim: NATO's operation over Kosovo was illegitimate
NATO as a "threat"

Claim: NATO's presence in the Baltic region is dangerous
Fact: NATO has taken defensive and proportionate steps in response to a changed security environment. In response to Russia's use of military force against its neighbours, Allies requested a greater NATO presence in the Baltic region.

In 2016, we deployed four multinational battlegroups ─ or "enhanced forward presence" ─ to Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland. In 2017, the battlegroups became fully operational. More than 4,500 troops from Europe and North America work closely together with home defence forces.

NATO's presence in the region is at the request of the host nations, and Allied forces uphold the highest standards of conduct, both on and off duty.

As part of NATO Allies' commitment to transparency, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania host Russian arms control inspectors. In Estonia, for instance, Russian inspectors recently conducted a Vienna Document Inspection, observing parts of exercise Spring Storm in May and June 2021.

Back to top


Claim: NATO missile defence threatens Russian security
Fact: NATO ballistic missile defence is not directed against Russia and cannot undermine Russia's strategic deterrence capabilities. It is designed to protect European Allies against missile threats from outside the Euro-Atlantic area.

The Aegis Ashore site in Romania is purely defensive. The interceptor missiles deployed there cannot be used for offensive purposes. The interceptors contain no explosives. They cannot hit objects on the Earth's surface – only in the air. In addition, the site lacks the software, the hardware and infrastructure needed to launch offensive missiles.

NATO invited Russia to cooperate on missile defence, an invitation extended to no other partner. Unfortunately, Russia refused to cooperate and rejected dialogue on this issue in 2013. Russian statements threatening to target Allies because of NATO's ballistic missile defence are unacceptable and counterproductive.

Back to top


Claim: NATO is aggressive and a threat to Russia
Fact: NATO is a defensive alliance, whose purpose is to protect our members. NATO’s official policy is that "the Alliance does not seek confrontation and poses no threat to Russia." NATO didn’t invade Georgia; NATO didn’t invade Ukraine. Russia did.

NATO has reached out to Russia consistently and publicly over the past 30 years. We worked together on issues ranging from counter-narcotics and counter-terrorism to submarine rescue and civil emergency planning – even during periods of NATO enlargement. However, in 2014, in response to Russia's aggressive actions against Ukraine, NATO suspended practical cooperation with Russia. We do not seek confrontation, but we can’t ignore Russia breaking international rules, undermining our stability and security.

In response to Russia's use of military force against Ukraine, NATO deployed four multinational battlegroups to the Baltic States and Poland in 2016. These units are not permanently based in the region, are in line with Allies’ international commitments, and amount to around 5,000 troops. They do not pose a threat to Russia’s 1,000,000 strong army. Before Russia's illegal annexation of Crimea, there were no Allied troops in the eastern part of the Alliance.

NATO remains open to meaningful dialogue with Russia. That is why NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg has invited all members of the NATO-Russia Council to a series of meetings to discuss European security, including the situation in and around Ukraine, NATO-Russia relations, and arms control and non-proliferation.

Back to top


Claim: NATO enlargement threatens Russia
Fact: NATO is a defensive alliance. Our purpose is to protect our member states. Every country that joins NATO undertakes to uphold its principles and policies. This includes the commitment that "NATO does not seek confrontation and poses no threat to Russia," as reaffirmed at the Brussels Summit this year.

NATO enlargement is not directed against Russia. Every sovereign nation has the right to choose its own security arrangements. This is a fundamental principle of European security, one that Russia has also subscribed to and should respect. In fact, after the end of the Cold War, Russia committed to building an inclusive European security architecture, including through the Charter of Paris, the establishment of the OSCE, the creation of the Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council, and the NATO-Russia Founding Act.

Back to top

Promises and pledges

Claim: NATO nuclear sharing and nuclear exercises violate the Non-Proliferation Treaty
Fact: NATO's nuclear arrangements have always been consistent with the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). The NPT is the cornerstone of the global non-proliferation regime. It has an essential role for international peace and security.

For decades, the United States has had nuclear weapons on the territory of some European NATO members as part of NATO's deterrence and defence capabilities. These weapons remain under the custody and control of the United States at all times. Furthermore, NATO's nuclear arrangements predate the NPT. They were fully addressed when the treaty was negotiated.

It is Russia that is using its nuclear weapons as a tool of intimidation. Russia uses irresponsible nuclear rhetoric and has stepped up its nuclear exercises. Russia is also expanding its nuclear capabilities by investing in novel and destabilising weapons. This activity and this rhetoric do not contribute to transparency and predictability, particularly in the context of a changed security environment.

Back to top


Claim: NATO's enhanced forward presence violates the NATO-Russia Founding Act?
Fact: NATO fully abides by the NATO-Russia Founding Act. In response to Russia's illegal and illegitimate annexation of Crimea and military build-up close to Alliance borders, NATO has deployed four multinational battlegroups – around 4,500 troops – to Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia and Poland.

These forces are rotational, defensive and well below any reasonable definition of "substantial combat forces." There has been no permanent stationing of substantial combat forces on the territory of eastern Allies. In fact, total force levels across the Alliance have substantially reduced since the end of the Cold War.

By signing the NATO-Russia Founding Act, Russia pledged not to threaten or use force against NATO Allies and any other state. It has broken this commitment, with the illegal and illegitimate annexation of Crimea, the territory of a sovereign state. Russia also continues to support militants in eastern Ukraine.

Back to top


Claim: NATO promised Russia it would not expand after the Cold War
Fact: Such an agreement was never made. NATO’s door has been open to new members since it was founded in 1949 – and that has never changed. This “Open Door Policy” is enshrined in Article 10 of NATO’s founding treaty, which says “any other European State in a position to further the principles of this Treaty and to contribute to the security of the North Atlantic” can apply for membership. Decisions on membership are taken by consensus among all Allies. No treaty signed by the United States, Europe and Russia included provisions on NATO membership.

The idea of NATO expansion beyond a united Germany was not on the agenda in 1989, particularly as the Warsaw Pact still existed. This was confirmed by Mikhail Gorbachev in an interview in 2014: "The topic of 'NATO expansion' was not discussed at all, and it wasn't brought up in those years. I say this with full responsibility. Not a single Eastern European country raised the issue, not even after the Warsaw Pact ceased to exist in 1991. Western leaders didn't bring it up, either."

Declassified White House transcripts also reveal that, in 1997, Bill Clinton consistently refused Boris Yeltsin's offer of a 'gentlemen's agreement' that no former Soviet Republics would enter NATO: "I can't make commitments on behalf of NATO, and I'm not going to be in the position myself of vetoing NATO expansion with respect to any country, much less letting you or anyone else do so…NATO operates by consensus."
Advertisement
Advertisement

发表于 2024-4-22 20:46 来自手机 |显示全部楼层
此文章由 idris 原创或转贴,不代表本站立场和观点,版权归 oursteps.com.au 和作者 idris 所有!转贴必须注明作者、出处和本声明,并保持内容完整
北约没有承诺过不接受新成员
头像被屏蔽

禁止发言

发表于 2024-4-22 20:58 来自手机 |显示全部楼层
此文章由 Gin_VT 原创或转贴,不代表本站立场和观点,版权归 oursteps.com.au 和作者 Gin_VT 所有!转贴必须注明作者、出处和本声明,并保持内容完整
robin_ld 发表于 2024-4-22 16:23
“There would be no extension of NATO’s jurisdiction for forces of NATO one inch to the east,” M ...

乌克兰加入北约了?好奇
头像被屏蔽

禁止发言

发表于 2024-4-22 21:00 来自手机 |显示全部楼层
此文章由 Gin_VT 原创或转贴,不代表本站立场和观点,版权归 oursteps.com.au 和作者 Gin_VT 所有!转贴必须注明作者、出处和本声明,并保持内容完整
robin_ld 发表于 2024-4-22 16:33
1999年:Czechia, Hungary and Poland
2004年:Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovaki ...

这些国家都在波兰的西边吧……确实没有东扩,南北扩XD
头像被屏蔽

禁止发言

发表于 2024-4-22 21:15 |显示全部楼层
此文章由 ralphk 原创或转贴,不代表本站立场和观点,版权归 oursteps.com.au 和作者 ralphk 所有!转贴必须注明作者、出处和本声明,并保持内容完整
中华人民共和国和United States of America 第一个联合公报, The 1st Joint Communiqué:

The United States acknowledges that all Chinese on either side of the Taiwan Strait maintain there is but one China and that Taiwan is a part of China. The United States Government does not challenge that position.

发表于 2024-4-22 21:22 |显示全部楼层
此文章由 foralemon 原创或转贴,不代表本站立场和观点,版权归 oursteps.com.au 和作者 foralemon 所有!转贴必须注明作者、出处和本声明,并保持内容完整
superdigua 发表于 2024-4-22 19:21
你怎么知道我“试图误导人”,而不是把法案看成了修宪?

算了,就这样吧。 ...

当辩论不利于自己时,要么说对方“对人不对事”然后拉黑,要么“就这样吧”擅自结束辩论,要么轻飘飘“我看错了”连个道歉都没,再要么直接装没看见不回复,明明当自己觉得有理时候几十上百条的盖楼。
确实符合你给我留下的印象呢。

评分

参与人数 1积分 +3 收起 理由
zxie8 + 3 偶对你的景仰如滔滔江水

查看全部评分

Advertisement
Advertisement
头像被屏蔽

禁止发言

发表于 2024-4-22 21:26 来自手机 |显示全部楼层
此文章由 Gin_VT 原创或转贴,不代表本站立场和观点,版权归 oursteps.com.au 和作者 Gin_VT 所有!转贴必须注明作者、出处和本声明,并保持内容完整
ralphk 发表于 2024-4-22 20:15
中华人民共和国和United States of America 第一个联合公报, The 1st Joint Communiqué:

The United St ...

1978年12月美中《建交公报》中,美国在“一个中国”有关立场上表述为“The Government of the United States of America acknowledges the Chinese position that there is but one China and Taiwan is part of China.”

这里的“acknowledge”该如何理解? 中方的翻译为:“美利坚和中国‘承认’中华人民共和国是中国的唯一合法政府…只有一个中国,台湾是中国的一部分”

然而,通过上文词义解释,我们不难看出,在美中《建交公报》中“acknowledge” 后面的宾语是“position”(立场),而非后面陈述的情况。因此,“acknowledge”正确的理解应该是“to express recognition or awareness of” (知悉,意识到)这一层意思,而非“承认”。

https://www.abc.net.au/chinese/2 ... ledge-mean/11546782
头像被屏蔽

禁止发言

发表于 2024-4-22 21:27 来自手机 |显示全部楼层
此文章由 Gin_VT 原创或转贴,不代表本站立场和观点,版权归 oursteps.com.au 和作者 Gin_VT 所有!转贴必须注明作者、出处和本声明,并保持内容完整
ralphk 发表于 2024-4-22 20:15
中华人民共和国和United States of America 第一个联合公报, The 1st Joint Communiqué:

The United St ...

纯好奇,这个公报到底说的是啥
头像被屏蔽

禁止发言

发表于 2024-4-22 21:37 |显示全部楼层
此文章由 ralphk 原创或转贴,不代表本站立场和观点,版权归 oursteps.com.au 和作者 ralphk 所有!转贴必须注明作者、出处和本声明,并保持内容完整
Gin_VT 发表于 2024-4-22 20:26
1978年12月美中《建交公报》中,美国在“一个中国”有关立场上表述为“The Government of the United Sta ...


1783年 巴黎条约,The Treaty of Paris was signed by U.S. and British Representatives on September 3, 1783,英国正式Acknowledge美国一个独立的国家。

Britain acknowledges the United States, comprising what had been the Province of New Hampshire, Province of Massachusetts Bay, Colony of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut Colony, Province of New York, Province of New Jersey, Province of Pennsylvania, Delaware Colony, Province of Maryland, Colony of Virginia, Province of North Carolina, Province of South Carolina, and Province of Georgia,[16] to be free, sovereign, and independent states

发表于 2024-4-22 21:45 |显示全部楼层
此文章由 gavinavailable 原创或转贴,不代表本站立场和观点,版权归 oursteps.com.au 和作者 gavinavailable 所有!转贴必须注明作者、出处和本声明,并保持内容完整
foralemon 发表于 2024-4-22 20:22
当辩论不利于自己时,要么说对方“对人不对事”然后拉黑,要么“就这样吧”擅自结束辩论,要么轻飘飘“我 ...

哈哈哈,是给很多人留下的印象。
而且你看现在他已经不再动不动拉黑了,再拉黑,他想“辩论”也找不到人了。

2019年度勋章

发表于 2024-4-22 22:26 |显示全部楼层
此文章由 superdigua 原创或转贴,不代表本站立场和观点,版权归 oursteps.com.au 和作者 superdigua 所有!转贴必须注明作者、出处和本声明,并保持内容完整
gavinavailable 发表于 2024-4-22 20:45
哈哈哈,是给很多人留下的印象。
而且你看现在他已经不再动不动拉黑了,再拉黑,他想“辩论”也找不到人 ...

拒绝就事论事,坚持针对我本人的,一律拉黑

=============
《罗伯特议事规则》 是1876年一个美国人写的书,里面提出了基本的辩论礼仪,不要质疑别人动机,就事论事,避免人身攻击。
结果到了2024年了,还有人就是死活理解不了这一点的必要性。

本帖子中包含更多资源

您需要 登录 才可以下载或查看,没有帐号?注册

x
舆论自由意味着容忍自己不喜欢的言论的存在。
我的观点当然可能是错误的。可以拉黑,无权屏蔽。
Advertisement
Advertisement
头像被屏蔽

禁止发言

发表于 2024-4-22 22:52 来自手机 |显示全部楼层
此文章由 Gin_VT 原创或转贴,不代表本站立场和观点,版权归 oursteps.com.au 和作者 Gin_VT 所有!转贴必须注明作者、出处和本声明,并保持内容完整
ralphk 发表于 2024-4-22 20:37
1783年 巴黎条约,The Treaty of Paris was signed by U.S. and British Representatives on September 3 ...

这需要联系上下文……然后就是我查到的公报内容,跟你发的不一样啊……我就疑惑了,这个公报原文到底是个啥

发表于 2024-4-22 23:35 |显示全部楼层
此文章由 gavinavailable 原创或转贴,不代表本站立场和观点,版权归 oursteps.com.au 和作者 gavinavailable 所有!转贴必须注明作者、出处和本声明,并保持内容完整
superdigua 发表于 2024-4-22 21:26
拒绝就事论事,坚持针对我本人的,一律拉黑

=============

到了2024年居然还有人不知道,在辩论礼仪之前,还有一个做人的道德礼仪。

为自己说过的话负责,

为自己说错的话道歉,

不要将自己的想法当作事实来描述。


而你,一条都没有做到过。
头像被屏蔽

禁止发言

发表于 2024-4-22 23:36 |显示全部楼层
此文章由 八级大狂风 原创或转贴,不代表本站立场和观点,版权归 oursteps.com.au 和作者 八级大狂风 所有!转贴必须注明作者、出处和本声明,并保持内容完整
gavinavailable 发表于 2024-4-22 20:45
哈哈哈,是给很多人留下的印象。
而且你看现在他已经不再动不动拉黑了,再拉黑,他想“辩论”也找不到人 ...

请问如何拉黑.... 谢谢

发表于 2024-4-22 23:41 |显示全部楼层
此文章由 gavinavailable 原创或转贴,不代表本站立场和观点,版权归 oursteps.com.au 和作者 gavinavailable 所有!转贴必须注明作者、出处和本声明,并保持内容完整
八级大狂风 发表于 2024-4-22 22:36
请问如何拉黑.... 谢谢

也不是拉黑,就是在消息提醒里选择屏蔽,以后这个人对你的回帖就不会有提醒。
但你去看整个帖子,还是会看到。

评分

参与人数 1积分 +3 收起 理由
八级大狂风 + 3 感谢分享

查看全部评分

头像被屏蔽

禁止发言

发表于 2024-4-22 23:59 |显示全部楼层
此文章由 ralphk 原创或转贴,不代表本站立场和观点,版权归 oursteps.com.au 和作者 ralphk 所有!转贴必须注明作者、出处和本声明,并保持内容完整
Gin_VT 发表于 2024-4-22 21:52
这需要联系上下文……然后就是我查到的公报内容,跟你发的不一样啊……我就疑惑了,这个公报原文到底是个 ...

下面是美国在台协会AIT的网页。

https://www.ait.org.tw/u-s-prc-joint-communique-1972/

The U.S. side declared: The United States ac- knowledges that all Chinese on either side of the Taiwan Strait maintain there is but one China and that Taiwan is a part of China. The United States Govern- ment does not challenge that position. It reaffirms its interest in a peaceful settlement of the Taiwan question by the Chinese themselves. With this pros- pect in mind, it affirms the ultimate objective of the withdrawal of all U.S. forces and military installa- tions from Taiwan. In the meantime, it will progres- sively reduce its forces and military installations on Taiwan as the tension in the area diminishes. The two sides agreed that it is desirable to broaden the understanding between the two peoples. To this end, they discussed specific areas in such fields as science, technology, culture, sports and journal- ism, in which people-to-people contacts and exchanges would be mutually beneficial. Each side undertakes to facilitate the further development of such contacts and exchanges.


如果对于acknowledge这个词的用法有疑问,咱们再看看 acknowledge 在历史上类似情况下,两国双边官方条约里面的一个运用。
1783年9月3日,英国乔治三世的代表和美国的代表在巴黎签署了巴黎协议。
The Treaty of Paris, signed in Paris by representatives of King George III of Great Britain and representatives of the United States on September 3, 1783。

Article 1:
Britain acknowledges the United States, comprising what had been the Province of New Hampshire, Province of Massachusetts Bay, Colony of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut Colony, Province of New York, Province of New Jersey, Province of Pennsylvania, Delaware Colony, Province of Maryland, Colony of Virginia, Province of North Carolina, Province of South Carolina, and Province of Georgia,[16] to be free, sovereign, and independent states, and that the British Crown and all heirs and successors relinquish claims to the Government, property, and territorial rights of the same, and every part thereof,

咱们最好不要双标,弄那些查不到啊,时空环境不同的话术,没意思。
Advertisement
Advertisement
头像被屏蔽

禁止发言

发表于 2024-4-23 00:42 来自手机 |显示全部楼层
此文章由 Gin_VT 原创或转贴,不代表本站立场和观点,版权归 oursteps.com.au 和作者 Gin_VT 所有!转贴必须注明作者、出处和本声明,并保持内容完整
本帖最后由 Gin_VT 于 2024-4-22 23:46 编辑
ralphk 发表于 2024-4-22 22:59
下面是美国在台协会AIT的网页。

https://www.ait.org.tw/u-s-prc-joint-communique-1972/

从你的截取的原文

The U.S. side declared: The United States ac- knowledges that all Chinese on either side of the Taiwan Strait maintain there is but one China and that Taiwan is a part of China.  
这个用百度翻译(避免说谷歌不公正)

美方声明:美国承认台湾海峡两岸所有中国人都坚持只有一个中国,台湾是中国的一部分。


头像被屏蔽

禁止发言

发表于 2024-4-23 00:42 来自手机 |显示全部楼层
此文章由 Gin_VT 原创或转贴,不代表本站立场和观点,版权归 oursteps.com.au 和作者 Gin_VT 所有!转贴必须注明作者、出处和本声明,并保持内容完整
本帖最后由 Gin_VT 于 2024-4-22 23:44 编辑
ralphk 发表于 2024-4-22 22:59
下面是美国在台协会AIT的网页。

https://www.ait.org.tw/u-s-prc-joint-communique-1972/


这下翻译没错吧……中国人坚持只有一个中国。这个不是废话么。美国人怎么认为呢

发表于 2024-4-23 09:15 来自手机 |显示全部楼层
此文章由 软件工人 原创或转贴,不代表本站立场和观点,版权归 oursteps.com.au 和作者 软件工人 所有!转贴必须注明作者、出处和本声明,并保持内容完整
gavinavailable 发表于 2024-4-22 22:35
到了2024年居然还有人不知道,在辩论礼仪之前,还有一个做人的道德礼仪。

为自己说过的话负责,


新闻版上胡扯就胡扯吧,不会有啥后果,车版是真的苦其人久矣。五年如一日宣扬特斯拉全自动驾驶(FSD)“年底”、“x月份”、“下半年”就要在澳洲投入使用,现在不买以后会大幅涨价等等,结果无数次“预言”落空,最早被他忽悠花1万刀买FSD的网友很可能到换车都用不上,可是从没见他有过任何羞愧或歉意。最无语的是,他吹了这么多年之后,今年终于买了一辆特斯拉,但他自己并没有买FSD……
论坛发帖对事不对人,得罪之处请见谅!
头像被屏蔽

禁止发言

发表于 2024-4-23 11:49 |显示全部楼层
此文章由 ralphk 原创或转贴,不代表本站立场和观点,版权归 oursteps.com.au 和作者 ralphk 所有!转贴必须注明作者、出处和本声明,并保持内容完整
Gin_VT 发表于 2024-4-22 23:42
这下翻译没错吧……中国人坚持只有一个中国。这个不是废话么。美国人怎么认为呢 ...

您修改了您的发言,我无法知道本意。

美国方面的英文原版在很多网站都可以查到,包括Department of State,中国外交部,还有非官方机构比如AIT和一些教育机构。
您说查不到原文,这还是我已经引用原文的情况下。
事实查验能力是独立思考的重要组成部分。

下面就是原文
The U.S. side declared: The United States acknowledges that all Chinese on either side of the Taiwan Strait maintain there is but one China and that Taiwan is a part of China.
两个that是并列关系,都是United States acknowledges的事实。
难道美方写的时候还需要百度翻译?
理解能力是独立思考的重要组成部分。

最后,以美国强大的话语权和宣传能力,如果他们觉得联合公报是有利于他们当下行为的解释,他们早就开始不停地新闻轰炸了。
然而并没有,提都不提。
从逻辑上讲一个失信的人怎么好意思提他违背的诺言,破坏的协议?一定不会。
逻辑也是独立思考能力的一个重要方面。

咱们共勉。
头像被屏蔽

禁止发言

发表于 2024-4-23 12:31 来自手机 |显示全部楼层
此文章由 Gin_VT 原创或转贴,不代表本站立场和观点,版权归 oursteps.com.au 和作者 Gin_VT 所有!转贴必须注明作者、出处和本声明,并保持内容完整
ralphk 发表于 2024-4-23 10:49
您修改了您的发言,我无法知道本意。

美国方面的英文原版在很多网站都可以查到,包括Department of Stat ...

我修改是因为有补充……
Advertisement
Advertisement
头像被屏蔽

禁止发言

发表于 2024-4-23 12:33 来自手机 |显示全部楼层
此文章由 Gin_VT 原创或转贴,不代表本站立场和观点,版权归 oursteps.com.au 和作者 Gin_VT 所有!转贴必须注明作者、出处和本声明,并保持内容完整
ralphk 发表于 2024-4-23 10:49
您修改了您的发言,我无法知道本意。

美国方面的英文原版在很多网站都可以查到,包括Department of Stat ...

所以就是美国现在不承认一个中国的意思了吗
头像被屏蔽

禁止发言

发表于 2024-4-23 12:35 来自手机 |显示全部楼层
此文章由 wenona 原创或转贴,不代表本站立场和观点,版权归 oursteps.com.au 和作者 wenona 所有!转贴必须注明作者、出处和本声明,并保持内容完整
软件工人 发表于 2024-4-23 08:15
新闻版上胡扯就胡扯吧,不会有啥后果,车版是真的苦其人久矣。五年如一日宣扬特斯拉全自动驾驶(FSD)“ ...

Who?
头像被屏蔽

禁止发言

发表于 2024-4-23 12:35 来自手机 |显示全部楼层
此文章由 Gin_VT 原创或转贴,不代表本站立场和观点,版权归 oursteps.com.au 和作者 Gin_VT 所有!转贴必须注明作者、出处和本声明,并保持内容完整
ralphk 发表于 2024-4-23 10:49
您修改了您的发言,我无法知道本意。

美国方面的英文原版在很多网站都可以查到,包括Department of Stat ...

还是说美国不承认台湾是中国的一部分?我没看到美国官方有这方面的阐述啊……我看到的都是反对单方面改变现状的说法。至于行动上拔高台湾的政治地位也很有限。

发表于 2024-4-23 12:53 |显示全部楼层
此文章由 lilyfan2 原创或转贴,不代表本站立场和观点,版权归 oursteps.com.au 和作者 lilyfan2 所有!转贴必须注明作者、出处和本声明,并保持内容完整
Gin_VT 发表于 2024-4-22 20:26
1978年12月美中《建交公报》中,美国在“一个中国”有关立场上表述为“The Government of the United Sta ...

这种公报两种语言版本都是同等效力的, 中英文版本都是经两国政府签字换文的

发表回复

您需要登录后才可以回帖 登录 | 注册

本版积分规则

Advertisement
Advertisement
返回顶部