tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9062723.post112368286571377012..comments2023-05-06T09:13:10.568-05:00Comments on 今日评论 - Today's Comment: 再评中国的新新左派“记者”安替今评员http://www.blogger.com/profile/07197950874117956653noreply@blogger.comBlogger21125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9062723.post-1124148644680040012005-08-15T18:30:00.000-05:002005-08-15T18:30:00.000-05:00If the root cause in Bellevue's view is Zhongnanha...If the root cause in Bellevue's view is Zhongnanhai, let's say Hooray ! If not, please state what it is.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9062723.post-1124096494562335192005-08-15T04:01:00.000-05:002005-08-15T04:01:00.000-05:00I never even hinted that. If the fight against ter...I never even hinted that. If the fight against terrorism has to be won, it must be measured but with vision. However, the smart Bush 'talk the talk and walk the walk'. His policy didn't address the root cause, has undermined America and strenghend Zhongnanhai. You call it patriotism?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9062723.post-1124068705275814062005-08-14T20:18:00.000-05:002005-08-14T20:18:00.000-05:00Cannot imagine a 'smart' fellow like Bellevue does...Cannot imagine a 'smart' fellow like Bellevue does not know the difference between duty and 'conclusion' of thoughts.<BR/>Bellevue adores the slick Bill for his 'guts' to throw a few missles on Sudan which Bellevue thinks is a borderline terrorist nation. It sounds like that if Bellevue were Bush today he would throw missles on Zhongnanhai tommorow in the fight against terrorism. If so, Bellevue is our hero.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9062723.post-1124039348714821722005-08-14T12:09:00.000-05:002005-08-14T12:09:00.000-05:00>>克林顿的导弹为什么要发射过去?如果克林顿还在位,苏丹的情况绝不可能如此恶化。你好意思说这件事?事...>>克林顿的导弹为什么要发射过去?如果克林顿还在位,苏丹的情况绝不可能如此恶化。<BR/><BR/>你好意思说这件事?事后的调查已经证明他轰炸的的确是个民用制药厂。<BR/><BR/>本纳登对美国宣战,开战。克林顿却只是象征性地发射几枚导弹了事。要是他在美国找到多次袭击后果断行动,9-11就不会再发生了。<BR/><BR/>克林顿自己还承认,苏丹政府曾经提议把本纳登引渡给美国,被他拒绝了,因为“没有合适的法律基础”。这个小丑!今评员https://www.blogger.com/profile/07197950874117956653noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9062723.post-1124017887127262962005-08-14T06:11:00.000-05:002005-08-14T06:11:00.000-05:00Fortunate enough, Bush (at least his speech writer...Fortunate enough, Bush (at least his speech writer) is smarter than the previous John Doe. In Bush's second inauguration speech, he said: <BR/><BR/><B>We are led, by events and common sense, to one conclusion: The survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands. The best hope for peace in our world is the expansion of freedom in all the world.</B><BR/><BR/>至于苏丹,差不多已经是 border-line 恐怖主义国家了,如果今日评论员不健忘的话,克林顿的导弹为什么要发射过去?如果克林顿还在位,苏丹的情况绝不可能如此恶化。<BR/><BR/>今日评论员要美国放弃在这些敏感国家的努力,都留给中国去影响,居心是何在呢?难道也是为了减税?不是吧 。。。Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9062723.post-1123989250703281692005-08-13T22:14:00.000-05:002005-08-13T22:14:00.000-05:00Bellevue has missed the point completely. The No.1...Bellevue has missed the point completely. The No.1 duty for the US president is to protect American lives. In fighting terrorists, the priority is to reduce the chances of those fanatics getting their hands on even minor WMDs and to take battles outside. While CCP is the core of the axis of evils(Iraq, Iran and N.Korea), just like Russian and Chinese Communists were behind the Korean War and Vietnam War, the UN troops and US troops could not invade PRC or USSR. These facts resemble those of Chinese Triads in Hong Kong where the police could rarely obtained the evidence to pin the Dragon Head down but ending up with charging and jailing the hooligans only.<BR/>Bush-bashing Bellevue knows how to complain but cannot sketch a plan.<BR/>The question posted previously was meant for Bellevue, not the Commentator.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9062723.post-1123945965982475982005-08-13T10:12:00.000-05:002005-08-13T10:12:00.000-05:00苏丹现在正在搞恐怖主义吗?苏丹人自相残杀关美国何事?为何要为此牺牲美国人的性命?即使是这与美国无关的...苏丹现在正在搞恐怖主义吗?苏丹人自相残杀关美国何事?为何要为此牺牲美国人的性命?<BR/><BR/>即使是这与美国无关的事,美国还是很Nice的提供了大量援助。看来做好人还是要被骂。和安替一个德行。今评员https://www.blogger.com/profile/07197950874117956653noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9062723.post-1123939198556752992005-08-13T08:19:00.000-05:002005-08-13T08:19:00.000-05:00早听说了。主流媒体称为中国在苏丹的准军事部队。这都是伟大领袖布什专注在伊拉克打仗、没有大局观造成的。...早听说了。主流媒体称为中国在苏丹的准军事部队。<BR/><BR/>这都是伟大领袖布什专注在伊拉克打仗、没有大局观造成的。看今日评论员怎么辩护。Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9062723.post-1123902048576140612005-08-12T22:00:00.000-05:002005-08-12T22:00:00.000-05:00My answer in short is no.My answer in short is no.今评员https://www.blogger.com/profile/07197950874117956653noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9062723.post-1123899736793110512005-08-12T21:22:00.000-05:002005-08-12T21:22:00.000-05:00Do you know that for its interest in oil, there ar...Do you know that for its interest in oil, there are about 50,000 Communist Chinese 'workers' in Sudan, working and living in fenced fields and quarters guarded by their own fully armed soldiers? When PLA soldiers sneaked into N. Korea 55 years ago, they masqueraded as 'Chinese volunteer army'.<BR/><BR/>Would you show American citizens a plan to send troops to N. Korea and Iran, both abetted by Communist China, to settle the WMD problems in the anti-terrorism war, assuming you were entrusted to carry out the Bush Doctrines.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9062723.post-1123854717333047462005-08-12T08:51:00.000-05:002005-08-12T08:51:00.000-05:00还有,你怎么看出来那是一篇社论?原文说的只是Featured Article还有,你怎么看出来那是一篇社论?<BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110006945" REL="nofollow">原文说的只是Featured Article</A>今评员https://www.blogger.com/profile/07197950874117956653noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9062723.post-1123849815738497372005-08-12T07:30:00.000-05:002005-08-12T07:30:00.000-05:00>>呵呵,就许你从纽约时报联想到左派堕落州官放火,不许安替百姓点灯? 差别太大了。我主要说的纽约时报...>>呵呵,就许你从纽约时报联想到左派堕落州官放火,不许安替百姓点灯? <BR/><BR/><BR/>差别太大了。我主要说的纽约时报的新闻。安替根据的是一篇评论。今评员https://www.blogger.com/profile/07197950874117956653noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9062723.post-1123849697744066912005-08-12T07:28:00.000-05:002005-08-12T07:28:00.000-05:00>>硬安上人家没有的意思。安替的意思,请倒着数3条看我的分析。>>硬安上人家没有的意思。<BR/><BR/>安替的意思,请倒着数3条看我的分析。今评员https://www.blogger.com/profile/07197950874117956653noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9062723.post-1123821292525466562005-08-11T23:34:00.000-05:002005-08-11T23:34:00.000-05:00我看过原文了,是WSJ社论。铿锵有力,但是脱离现实。安替指出的正是形式上的明显错误。今日评论跟这篇社...我看过原文了,是WSJ社论。铿锵有力,但是脱离现实。安替指出的正是形式上的明显错误。<BR/><BR/>今日评论跟这篇社论对错无关,但是今日评论解读安替对这篇社论的评论错误,硬安上人家没有的意思。Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9062723.post-1123808059457764202005-08-11T19:54:00.000-05:002005-08-11T19:54:00.000-05:00WSJ评论版的对错与我何干?我ENDOSE那片评论拉?还要注意是评论不是社论。对错当然有关了!人家安...<I>WSJ评论版的对错与我何干?我ENDOSE那片评论拉?还要注意是评论不是社论。</I><BR/>对错当然有关了!人家安替指出了WSJ社论一个致命论证错误,无可挑剔。俺没看过原文,安替说是社论。<BR/><BR/><I>你不至于像安替那样无聊,从一篇评论联想到拍马屁,右派堕落之类的吧?</I><BR/>呵呵,就许你从纽约时报联想到左派堕落州官放火,不许安替百姓点灯?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9062723.post-1123778166329682332005-08-11T11:36:00.000-05:002005-08-11T11:36:00.000-05:00WSJ评论版的对错与我何干?我ENDOSE那片评论拉?还要注意是评论不是社论。你不至于像安替那样无聊...WSJ评论版的对错与我何干?我ENDOSE那片评论拉?还要注意是评论不是社论。<BR/><BR/>你不至于像安替那样无聊,从一篇评论联想到拍马屁,右派堕落之类的吧?<BR/><BR/>姑且按照你的逻辑:<BR/><BR/>1,安替认为布什主义是错的,不works的。<BR/><BR/>2,安替更正WSJ说达富尔发生在布什任内,所以不但不能说明达富尔是因为没有实行布什主义,反而说明,达富尔是布什主义的失败。<BR/><BR/>3,达富尔发生时布什没有派兵。所以布什主义的失败就在于该派兵的时候不派兵,不该派兵的时候,例如伊拉克,反而乱派兵:<BR/><BR/><I>以极其沉痛的语气检讨西方的不作为,导致悲剧发生<BR/></I><BR/><BR/>所以,安替还是指责布什没有派兵。证毕。今评员https://www.blogger.com/profile/07197950874117956653noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9062723.post-1123772974687909982005-08-11T10:09:00.000-05:002005-08-11T10:09:00.000-05:00这是原文:让我吃惊却是,说的好好的这些常识,最后结尾的时候,却发出了这样的社论结论:“似乎现在已经陷...这是原文:<BR/><BR/><I>让我吃惊却是,说的好好的这些常识,最后结尾的时候,却发出了这样的社论结论:“似乎现在已经陷入一个循环,不要再有斯雷布列尼察、不要再有卢旺达、不要再有达富尔。如果人民真的相信这些口号,那么让这些都能实现的政策已经有了一个名字,那就是‘布什原则’。” 达富尔还是在布什的任内发生的啊!也许善良的美国人对这右派报纸的这种毫无原则地赞赏总统没有警惕的话,出生在中国共产时代的我们却有更多的反感。一直到现在,我们的官方媒体都会这种东西。</I><BR/><BR/>安替只不过戳穿了WSJ的一个隐蔽较深的misleading而已,被评论员故意歪曲原意。WSJ社论版搞无赖逻辑很多次了,比如说Karl Rove是wistle blower,自由派媒体因该向骂人家bullshit的Novak道歉等等,已经上升到喜剧高度了。<BR/><BR/>我替安替翻成评论员能理解的白话文:<BR/><BR/>WSJ话里话外的意思是说克林顿政府是girlie men,不敢也不原意利用美国强大的军事力量打击邪恶,解放受屠杀苦难异国人民,放任波黑、卢旺达、苏丹的种族清洗;如今有了伟大领袖布什,横空出世,豪气无边,不计前嫌(i was against nation building before i was for it),推出布什新思想理论,非友即敌,谁丫不服就抽谁,在这样伟大光荣正确的领导下,再也不会有这样的人间惨剧发生了。WSJ意淫达到高潮,马屁拍过了头,忘记了苏丹惨剧就发生在布什任内,布什并没有应用他的光辉思想理论解决苏丹问题,甚至没怎么在意苏丹人民受苦问题,这里原因复杂,有一条可能是世界第二大石油储备不在苏丹吧Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9062723.post-1123768743840930112005-08-11T08:59:00.000-05:002005-08-11T08:59:00.000-05:00>>人家那一句是指出,布什主义并非如《WSJ》所说是解决达富尔问题的答案我的理解是,安替在暗示,不但...>>人家那一句是指出,布什主义并非如《WSJ》所说是解决达富尔问题的答案<BR/><BR/>我的理解是,安替在暗示,不但布什主义不能解决达富尔问题,而且达富尔问题在布什任内继续发生,布什/美国还要负一定责任。这是正常人阅读后都可能会有的理解。今评员https://www.blogger.com/profile/07197950874117956653noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9062723.post-1123766162138825782005-08-11T08:16:00.000-05:002005-08-11T08:16:00.000-05:00人家那一句是指出,布什主义并非如《WSJ》所说是解决达富尔问题的答案。这一点上人家明显赢了《WSJ》...人家那一句是指出,布什主义并非如《WSJ》所说是解决达富尔问题的答案。这一点上人家明显赢了《WSJ》。<BR/><BR/>看看这里:<BR/><BR/><I>近年我们纪念这个悲剧,就是要提醒世人,联合国并没有有效制止这场屠杀,我们的世界其实并不安全。中国在达富尔问题上在重复这种污点。</I><BR/><BR/>人家并没有放过真的凶手。Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9062723.post-1123765282730395702005-08-11T08:01:00.000-05:002005-08-11T08:01:00.000-05:00安替的暗示原文:>>达富尔还是在布什的任内发生的啊!安替的暗示原文:<BR/><BR/>>>达富尔还是在布什的任内发生的啊!今评员https://www.blogger.com/profile/07197950874117956653noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9062723.post-1123765119605360682005-08-11T07:58:00.000-05:002005-08-11T07:58:00.000-05:00安替在吹捧纽约时报的同时,没有忘记在文中大骂布什,暗示他要对苏丹的达富尔惨剧负责。这就不厚道了,安替...安替在吹捧纽约时报的同时,没有忘记在文中大骂布什,暗示他要对苏丹的达富尔惨剧负责。<BR/><BR/>这就不厚道了,安替倒是有暗示,他是暗示(其实已经不那么“暗”了)中国政府在联合国安理会处处作梗,阻挠对苏丹的达富尔惨剧的干预解决,处在中国那么险恶的环境下,他的谴责已经差不多是点名了,这是很勇敢的。<BR/><BR/>不知道你是没看懂还是故意打击人家。Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com