如果美国向丹麦宣战以夺取格林兰,那么所有其他北约国家是否有义务对美国宣战,因为丹麦在这种情况下被侵略者攻击?
正文翻译
Lou Loro
Yes if Denmark declares Article 5 of the NATO Treaty active.. then all of the other NATO countries are obligated to help and in all likelihood the U.S. would be ejected from NATO, most likely by unanimous vote and any U.S. bases in any of their countries would be closed, and trade sanctions could also be imposed, just about anything that can be used to convince the U.S. to cease its aggression will by used. This would be the biggest mistake that America has ever made, Attacking an ally to seize territories that it has no claims or rights to would show the world how truly unstable America has become and would be very bad for business and in all likelihood the American dollar would loose its world currency status. This alone would be really bad for America’s economy as then it’s huge debt becomes a real problem that would need urgent attention by very knowledgeable economists. The fact that it would be facing the USD’s downfall as world currency and facing sanctions from some of the richest countries in the world would not be good, throw in a war that needs funding… and WOOF, hard times ahead. On the Bright side China, Russia, Iran and North Korea would be happy.
如果丹麦宣布北约条约第5条生效,那么所有其他北约成员国都将有义务提供帮助,并且很可能美国会被北约驱逐,最有可能通过一致投票来决定,任何美国在其他国家的军事基地将被关闭,还可能实施贸易制裁,几乎所有能用来迫使美国停止其侵略行为的手段都会被使用。这将是美国犯下的最大错误,攻击一个盟友以夺取它没有任何主权或权利的领土,将向世界展示美国的真正不稳定性,这对商业来说非常不利,而且很可能导致美元失去世界货币的地位。这一点对美国经济来说将是巨大的打击,因为那时它庞大的债务将变得真正成问题,需要经验丰富的经济学家紧急处理。事实上,美国面临美元作为世界货币的衰退,并且要面对来自一些世界上最富有国家的制裁,情况不会好,若再加上需要资金支持的战争...那么,美国将面临艰难的时刻。好的一面是,中国、俄罗斯、伊朗和朝鲜会很高兴。
Yes if Denmark declares Article 5 of the NATO Treaty active.. then all of the other NATO countries are obligated to help and in all likelihood the U.S. would be ejected from NATO, most likely by unanimous vote and any U.S. bases in any of their countries would be closed, and trade sanctions could also be imposed, just about anything that can be used to convince the U.S. to cease its aggression will by used. This would be the biggest mistake that America has ever made, Attacking an ally to seize territories that it has no claims or rights to would show the world how truly unstable America has become and would be very bad for business and in all likelihood the American dollar would loose its world currency status. This alone would be really bad for America’s economy as then it’s huge debt becomes a real problem that would need urgent attention by very knowledgeable economists. The fact that it would be facing the USD’s downfall as world currency and facing sanctions from some of the richest countries in the world would not be good, throw in a war that needs funding… and WOOF, hard times ahead. On the Bright side China, Russia, Iran and North Korea would be happy.
如果丹麦宣布北约条约第5条生效,那么所有其他北约成员国都将有义务提供帮助,并且很可能美国会被北约驱逐,最有可能通过一致投票来决定,任何美国在其他国家的军事基地将被关闭,还可能实施贸易制裁,几乎所有能用来迫使美国停止其侵略行为的手段都会被使用。这将是美国犯下的最大错误,攻击一个盟友以夺取它没有任何主权或权利的领土,将向世界展示美国的真正不稳定性,这对商业来说非常不利,而且很可能导致美元失去世界货币的地位。这一点对美国经济来说将是巨大的打击,因为那时它庞大的债务将变得真正成问题,需要经验丰富的经济学家紧急处理。事实上,美国面临美元作为世界货币的衰退,并且要面对来自一些世界上最富有国家的制裁,情况不会好,若再加上需要资金支持的战争...那么,美国将面临艰难的时刻。好的一面是,中国、俄罗斯、伊朗和朝鲜会很高兴。
评论翻译
J J Farrell
No declarations of war or necessary. If Denmark is attacked and requests military assistance from NATO then the other NATO nations are obliged to provide it.
不需要宣战。如果丹麦遭到攻击并请求北约的军事援助,那么其他北约国家有义务提供帮助。
No declarations of war or necessary. If Denmark is attacked and requests military assistance from NATO then the other NATO nations are obliged to provide it.
不需要宣战。如果丹麦遭到攻击并请求北约的军事援助,那么其他北约国家有义务提供帮助。
Tom Carlaw
Greenland has a very small population and from a cost benefit analysis waging war against the United States would be uneconomical. However, the US legal system would provide billions of dollars of incentives to litigate America to death. That would not be the only legal frontier. How many Americans are capable or interested in moving to Greenland or defending it?
格林兰人口非常少,从成本效益分析来看,向美国宣战将是不经济的。然而,美国的法律体系将提供数十亿美元的激励,促使通过诉讼将美国拖垮。这将不是唯一的法律战场。有多少美国人有能力或愿意搬到格林兰或为其辩护呢?
Greenland has a very small population and from a cost benefit analysis waging war against the United States would be uneconomical. However, the US legal system would provide billions of dollars of incentives to litigate America to death. That would not be the only legal frontier. How many Americans are capable or interested in moving to Greenland or defending it?
格林兰人口非常少,从成本效益分析来看,向美国宣战将是不经济的。然而,美国的法律体系将提供数十亿美元的激励,促使通过诉讼将美国拖垮。这将不是唯一的法律战场。有多少美国人有能力或愿意搬到格林兰或为其辩护呢?
Christian Desaix
They won't declare war on anybody, they would just invade. Nobody declares war anymore.
他们不会宣战,他们只会入侵。现在没人再宣战了。
They won't declare war on anybody, they would just invade. Nobody declares war anymore.
他们不会宣战,他们只会入侵。现在没人再宣战了。
Mark Stubbs
NATO are a defence force and don’t “Declare War” What NATO will do is come to the defence of Denmark if Denmark invokes Article 5 of the NATO Treaty
北约是一个防御性力量,不会“宣战”。如果丹麦启动北约条约第五条,北约将会来保护丹麦。
NATO are a defence force and don’t “Declare War” What NATO will do is come to the defence of Denmark if Denmark invokes Article 5 of the NATO Treaty
北约是一个防御性力量,不会“宣战”。如果丹麦启动北约条约第五条,北约将会来保护丹麦。
Bryan Caldwell
Yes. Article 5 of the NATO Treaty provides that an attack against one is an attack against all. BTW, Canada is also a NATO member.
是的,北约条约的第五条规定,对一个成员国的攻击就是对所有成员国的攻击。顺便说一下,加拿大也是北约成员国。
Yes. Article 5 of the NATO Treaty provides that an attack against one is an attack against all. BTW, Canada is also a NATO member.
是的,北约条约的第五条规定,对一个成员国的攻击就是对所有成员国的攻击。顺便说一下,加拿大也是北约成员国。
John Hattan
No.
If Denmark triggers article 5, asking for help, then other NATO members are required to help although nothing is specified about which kind of help they are to provide. So far, only the USA ever triggered article 5, for instance Britain did not call for help during the Falklands war.
Anyway what an American attack against an ally would mean is, the US don't care about NATO anymore, meaning a death blow to the organisation. I'm not sure Putin would hide his boner…
不。如果丹麦触发第5条,请求帮助,那么其他北约成员国有义务提供帮助,尽管并没有具体规定他们应提供什么类型的帮助。到目前为止,只有美国曾触发过第5条,例如英国在福克兰战争期间并没有请求帮助。无论如何,美国对盟友发动攻击意味着美国不再关心北约,这将是对该组织的致命一击。我不确定普京会不会掩饰自己的得意。
No.
If Denmark triggers article 5, asking for help, then other NATO members are required to help although nothing is specified about which kind of help they are to provide. So far, only the USA ever triggered article 5, for instance Britain did not call for help during the Falklands war.
Anyway what an American attack against an ally would mean is, the US don't care about NATO anymore, meaning a death blow to the organisation. I'm not sure Putin would hide his boner…
不。如果丹麦触发第5条,请求帮助,那么其他北约成员国有义务提供帮助,尽管并没有具体规定他们应提供什么类型的帮助。到目前为止,只有美国曾触发过第5条,例如英国在福克兰战争期间并没有请求帮助。无论如何,美国对盟友发动攻击意味着美国不再关心北约,这将是对该组织的致命一击。我不确定普京会不会掩饰自己的得意。
Ken Wallewein
I note nobody is talking about economic warfare. Trump loves to pick fights with Canada. Guess it plays well in MAGA polls.
How would you pick an economic fight with Greenland…?
我注意到没人提到经济战争。特朗普喜欢和加拿大发生冲突,猜测这对MAGA选民有吸引力。
你打算如何和格林兰展开经济对抗?
原创翻译:龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
I note nobody is talking about economic warfare. Trump loves to pick fights with Canada. Guess it plays well in MAGA polls.
How would you pick an economic fight with Greenland…?
我注意到没人提到经济战争。特朗普喜欢和加拿大发生冲突,猜测这对MAGA选民有吸引力。
你打算如何和格林兰展开经济对抗?
原创翻译:龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
Bill Boyd
exactly right—the international court would declare the USA as a criminal aggressor and issue an arrest warrant for trump, the same as they did for Pootin
完全正确——国际法院会宣布美国为犯罪侵略者,并对特朗普发布逮捕令,就像他们对普京所做的那样。
exactly right—the international court would declare the USA as a criminal aggressor and issue an arrest warrant for trump, the same as they did for Pootin
完全正确——国际法院会宣布美国为犯罪侵略者,并对特朗普发布逮捕令,就像他们对普京所做的那样。
Grave Robber
Actually yes.
And the US would lose that fight.
And while preoccupied getting our asses kicked there, we'd lose the rest of our strategic alliances and bases as well.
We'd be a bigger pariah state than Russia now is.
实际上是的。
美国会输掉那场战争。
而且在专注于被打得落花流水的同时,我们会失去其他所有战略联盟和基地。
我们会成为比现在的俄罗斯还要被孤立的国家。
Actually yes.
And the US would lose that fight.
And while preoccupied getting our asses kicked there, we'd lose the rest of our strategic alliances and bases as well.
We'd be a bigger pariah state than Russia now is.
实际上是的。
美国会输掉那场战争。
而且在专注于被打得落花流水的同时,我们会失去其他所有战略联盟和基地。
我们会成为比现在的俄罗斯还要被孤立的国家。
Thierry Etienne Joseph Rotty
No.
Article 5 specifies a country needs to consider on attack on one member as an attack on all, it DOES NOT REQUIRE MILITARY ACTION.
A strongly worded diplomatic note fulfills the Article 5 requirement.
不。第五条规定一个国家需要将对一个成员国的攻击视为对所有成员国的攻击,但并不要求采取军事行动。
一份措辞强烈的外交声明就能满足第五条要求。
No.
Article 5 specifies a country needs to consider on attack on one member as an attack on all, it DOES NOT REQUIRE MILITARY ACTION.
A strongly worded diplomatic note fulfills the Article 5 requirement.
不。第五条规定一个国家需要将对一个成员国的攻击视为对所有成员国的攻击,但并不要求采取军事行动。
一份措辞强烈的外交声明就能满足第五条要求。
Dan L. Oom
Every interesting: what if an outsider (Argentina) invaded the territory of a NATO member state (the UK). What did the USA do during the Falklands War? They offered peace negotiation, but Britain sent their fleet south and reconquered the Falkland Islands.
很有意思:如果一个外部国家(如阿根廷)入侵了一个北约成员国(如英国)的领土,美国在福克兰战争期间做了什么?他们提供了和平谈判,但英国派遣了舰队南下,重新夺回了福克兰群岛。
Every interesting: what if an outsider (Argentina) invaded the territory of a NATO member state (the UK). What did the USA do during the Falklands War? They offered peace negotiation, but Britain sent their fleet south and reconquered the Falkland Islands.
很有意思:如果一个外部国家(如阿根廷)入侵了一个北约成员国(如英国)的领土,美国在福克兰战争期间做了什么?他们提供了和平谈判,但英国派遣了舰队南下,重新夺回了福克兰群岛。
Timmon
Absolutely correct. One “declares war ON” not “to”. And the verb is correctly called “obliged”, not ‘obligated’, Anyway, 2 problems: 1. The US army does not know where Denmark is nor does it know how to find out where Denmark is. 2. The US Pacific fleet will probably sink in the Pacific on the way to Greenland.
完全正确。“宣战”是“对”而不是“给”。而且这个动词应该是“obliged”,而不是“obligated”。无论如何,有两个问题:
美国军队不知道丹麦在哪里,也不知道如何找到丹麦。
美国太平洋舰队可能会在去格林兰的途中在太平洋沉没。
Absolutely correct. One “declares war ON” not “to”. And the verb is correctly called “obliged”, not ‘obligated’, Anyway, 2 problems: 1. The US army does not know where Denmark is nor does it know how to find out where Denmark is. 2. The US Pacific fleet will probably sink in the Pacific on the way to Greenland.
完全正确。“宣战”是“对”而不是“给”。而且这个动词应该是“obliged”,而不是“obligated”。无论如何,有两个问题:
美国军队不知道丹麦在哪里,也不知道如何找到丹麦。
美国太平洋舰队可能会在去格林兰的途中在太平洋沉没。
Max Patrick
In the United States a President has no authority to declare war. Donald Trump is not President until January 20th. He has no authority regardless. It's Donald Trump and his big mouth that you believe the BS coming out.
United States Congress has the only authority to declare war. No President has this authority. Do you understand?
在美国,总统没有宣战的权力。唐纳德·特朗普直到1月20日才成为总统,实际上他无权宣战。是唐纳德·特朗普和他的大嘴巴让你相信了那些胡说八道。美国国会才是唯一有权宣战的机构,任何总统都没有这个权力。你明白吗?
In the United States a President has no authority to declare war. Donald Trump is not President until January 20th. He has no authority regardless. It's Donald Trump and his big mouth that you believe the BS coming out.
United States Congress has the only authority to declare war. No President has this authority. Do you understand?
在美国,总统没有宣战的权力。唐纳德·特朗普直到1月20日才成为总统,实际上他无权宣战。是唐纳德·特朗普和他的大嘴巴让你相信了那些胡说八道。美国国会才是唯一有权宣战的机构,任何总统都没有这个权力。你明白吗?
Reluctant Witness
Too many variables. Is Trump really that nuts? Is congress really that nuts? Is the military that submissive? Trump won by a rather slender margin once you add up the people who voted against him, and the people who flat out decided to not decide and didn't vote. People at heart are essentially selfish if possible, so many will balance the probable losses againt possible gains.
变量太多了。特朗普真的那么疯吗?国会真的那么疯狂吗?军方真的那么顺从吗?特朗普以相当微弱的差距赢得选举,算上那些投票反对他的人,以及那些干脆决定不投票的人。从本质上讲,人们往往是自私的,如果可能的话,所以许多人会在可能的损失和潜在的收益之间做权衡。
Too many variables. Is Trump really that nuts? Is congress really that nuts? Is the military that submissive? Trump won by a rather slender margin once you add up the people who voted against him, and the people who flat out decided to not decide and didn't vote. People at heart are essentially selfish if possible, so many will balance the probable losses againt possible gains.
变量太多了。特朗普真的那么疯吗?国会真的那么疯狂吗?军方真的那么顺从吗?特朗普以相当微弱的差距赢得选举,算上那些投票反对他的人,以及那些干脆决定不投票的人。从本质上讲,人们往往是自私的,如果可能的话,所以许多人会在可能的损失和潜在的收益之间做权衡。
Clive Bilby
Would the US take Greenland by force, if Denmark refuses to sell?
Yes
The United States of America has a long history of attempted and sometimes successful regime change around the globe.
如果丹麦拒绝出售格林兰,美国会通过武力占领吗?
会的
美国有着全球范围内进行政权更替的悠久历史,有时甚至取得了成功。
Would the US take Greenland by force, if Denmark refuses to sell?
Yes
The United States of America has a long history of attempted and sometimes successful regime change around the globe.
如果丹麦拒绝出售格林兰,美国会通过武力占领吗?
会的
美国有着全球范围内进行政权更替的悠久历史,有时甚至取得了成功。
You wouldn’t think the US would invade a Commonwealth Country that had Queen Elizabeth II as its Queen, yet that’s exactly what happened to Grenada in 1983!
你可能不会认为美国会入侵一个属于英联邦的国家,尤其是这个国家的女王是伊丽莎白二世,但1983年美国确实入侵了格林纳达!
你可能不会认为美国会入侵一个属于英联邦的国家,尤其是这个国家的女王是伊丽莎白二世,但1983年美国确实入侵了格林纳达!
You wouldn’t think the US would take another Nato member’s territory by force, especially when it already has a military presence there, namely the 821st Space Base Group, Squadron, and Security Forces, along with the 12th Space Warning Squadron. But then the USA often says one thing and does another.
你不会认为美国会通过武力占领另一个北约成员国的领土,尤其是当它已经在那里有军事存在时,比如821号空间基地集团、军团和安全部队,以及第12空间预警中队。但美国常常说一套做一套。
你不会认为美国会通过武力占领另一个北约成员国的领土,尤其是当它已经在那里有军事存在时,比如821号空间基地集团、军团和安全部队,以及第12空间预警中队。但美国常常说一套做一套。
They managed to keep a straight face whilst saying “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal” whilst owning slaves, and not treating all people equally for years.
他们一边宣称“我们认为这些真理是不言而喻的:人人生而平等”,另一边却拥有奴隶,并且多年来没有做到真正的平等对待所有人。
他们一边宣称“我们认为这些真理是不言而喻的:人人生而平等”,另一边却拥有奴隶,并且多年来没有做到真正的平等对待所有人。
Could it all just be a distraction from the changes being made in America? Probably! But I wouldn’t put anything past America if a profit is involved. It used to invade countries for oil to the point we made jokes about it, now it's minerals and Greenland’s wealth of minerals is vast.
这一切可能只是为了分散人们对美国正在发生变化的注意力吗?可能!但如果涉及到利润,我不会低估美国的做法。美国曾经为了石油入侵国家,甚至我们还开玩笑说这件事,现在是为了矿产资源,而格林兰岛的矿产资源丰富无比。
这一切可能只是为了分散人们对美国正在发生变化的注意力吗?可能!但如果涉及到利润,我不会低估美国的做法。美国曾经为了石油入侵国家,甚至我们还开玩笑说这件事,现在是为了矿产资源,而格林兰岛的矿产资源丰富无比。
James Burke
Not gonna happen. The reporter asked if trump “would guarantee that the use of military force would not be allowed “ to which trump said “i cannot guarantee that” the reporter specifically asked a question in an attempt to portray trump as either a dictator or a week president, there was nonin between. Go watch npr on YouTube they left the entire question with the entire response. Stop letting cnn run your life. And to all of those whom claim trump is a “monstrosity’, “fascists” or whatever you want to claim, you all need to get your heads checked. Do NOT forget that before the left decided to have covid released trump was president and did none of what you are falsely accusing him of. Ut guess who has. Your beloved Joe biden has done everything you accused trump of.
不会发生的。记者问特朗普是否“能保证不允许使用武力”,特朗普回答说“我不能保证这一点”。记者特意提出这个问题,试图把特朗普描绘成一个独裁者或一个软弱的总统,似乎没有中间地带。去YouTube看NPR,他们保留了整个问题和完整的回答。不要让CNN控制你们的生活。至于那些说特朗普是“怪物”,“法西斯”或者你们想说的任何话的人,你们都需要检查一下自己的脑袋。不要忘记,在左翼决定让新冠病毒被释放之前,特朗普是总统,他并没有做你们所错误指责他的事情。而且,猜猜看是谁做了?你们亲爱的乔·拜登做了你们指责特朗普所做的一切。
Not gonna happen. The reporter asked if trump “would guarantee that the use of military force would not be allowed “ to which trump said “i cannot guarantee that” the reporter specifically asked a question in an attempt to portray trump as either a dictator or a week president, there was nonin between. Go watch npr on YouTube they left the entire question with the entire response. Stop letting cnn run your life. And to all of those whom claim trump is a “monstrosity’, “fascists” or whatever you want to claim, you all need to get your heads checked. Do NOT forget that before the left decided to have covid released trump was president and did none of what you are falsely accusing him of. Ut guess who has. Your beloved Joe biden has done everything you accused trump of.
不会发生的。记者问特朗普是否“能保证不允许使用武力”,特朗普回答说“我不能保证这一点”。记者特意提出这个问题,试图把特朗普描绘成一个独裁者或一个软弱的总统,似乎没有中间地带。去YouTube看NPR,他们保留了整个问题和完整的回答。不要让CNN控制你们的生活。至于那些说特朗普是“怪物”,“法西斯”或者你们想说的任何话的人,你们都需要检查一下自己的脑袋。不要忘记,在左翼决定让新冠病毒被释放之前,特朗普是总统,他并没有做你们所错误指责他的事情。而且,猜猜看是谁做了?你们亲爱的乔·拜登做了你们指责特朗普所做的一切。
Max Tierney
Trump has forgotten the Australian connection to Denmark, King Fred’s wife, Queen Mary is Australian, Fredrick only needs to ask once and the entire Australian military will be mobilised to defend Greenland.
Trump has forgotten the commonwealth’s connection to Canada, Canadians only need to ask once and all of a sudden there will be an army far greater than the USA helping to defend Canada’s borders.
特朗普忘记了丹麦与澳大利亚的关系,弗雷德里克国王的妻子玛丽皇后是澳大利亚人,弗雷德里克只需要说一声,整个澳大利亚军队就会动员起来保护格林兰岛。
特朗普也忘记了英联邦与加拿大的关系,加拿大人只需要说一声,马上就会有一支远远超过美国的军队来帮助保卫加拿大的边界。
Trump has forgotten the Australian connection to Denmark, King Fred’s wife, Queen Mary is Australian, Fredrick only needs to ask once and the entire Australian military will be mobilised to defend Greenland.
Trump has forgotten the commonwealth’s connection to Canada, Canadians only need to ask once and all of a sudden there will be an army far greater than the USA helping to defend Canada’s borders.
特朗普忘记了丹麦与澳大利亚的关系,弗雷德里克国王的妻子玛丽皇后是澳大利亚人,弗雷德里克只需要说一声,整个澳大利亚军队就会动员起来保护格林兰岛。
特朗普也忘记了英联邦与加拿大的关系,加拿大人只需要说一声,马上就会有一支远远超过美国的军队来帮助保卫加拿大的边界。
Jermaine B
Why would you believe that ? The man who said would lower grocery prices. The man who said who build a wall and make Mexico pay for it . The man who said that he would stop the Ukraine War in one day when he was elected . The has more BS that comes out of his mouth that he needs toilet paper for his mouth more than for the usual places.
你为什么相信这一点?那个说过会降低杂货价格的人。那个说过要建墙让墨西哥付钱的人。那个说过当选后一日内就能结束乌克兰战争的人。那个嘴里总是冒出更多胡说八道的人,他的嘴巴需要用厕所纸擦的次数比其他地方还多。
Why would you believe that ? The man who said would lower grocery prices. The man who said who build a wall and make Mexico pay for it . The man who said that he would stop the Ukraine War in one day when he was elected . The has more BS that comes out of his mouth that he needs toilet paper for his mouth more than for the usual places.
你为什么相信这一点?那个说过会降低杂货价格的人。那个说过要建墙让墨西哥付钱的人。那个说过当选后一日内就能结束乌克兰战争的人。那个嘴里总是冒出更多胡说八道的人,他的嘴巴需要用厕所纸擦的次数比其他地方还多。
As Americans, we are poorly educated in regards to our political system, geopolitics , and our constitution.Trump cannot commit forces to invade other sovereign nations without huge political blowback. Also, the War Powers Act of 1973 prevents the president from deploying military forces no longer than 90 days without approval from Congress. Congress has the purse strings. Trump has to justify why Congress would finance this extended military action. Also, Congress alone has the power to declare war. How would Trump justify invading and occupying a NATO ally and invading a friendly country such as Panama?? He won't get that support with MAGA in disarray and traditional Republicans like Mitch McConnell steadfastly against Trump . Trump is a lame duck president even before he is sworn in less than 2 weeks. He doesn't care . This kept him out of jail and that's all that matters .
作为美国人,我们在政治体系、地缘政治和宪法方面的教育十分不足。特朗普不能在没有巨大政治反响的情况下,承诺派遣军队侵略其他主权国家。此外,《1973年战争权力法》禁止总统在没有国会批准的情况下将军队部署超过90天。国会掌握财政权。特朗普必须证明为什么国会会为这种长期军事行动提供资金。此外,只有国会有宣战的权力。特朗普如何为侵略并占领北约盟国以及像巴拿马这样的友好国家辩护呢?在“让美国再次伟大”(MAGA)陷入混乱,传统共和党人如米奇·麦康奈尔坚决反对特朗普的情况下,他无法获得这样的支持。特朗普即使在不到两周后宣誓就职,也已经是一个“跛脚总统”。他不在乎。这使他免于入狱,这才是最重要的。
作为美国人,我们在政治体系、地缘政治和宪法方面的教育十分不足。特朗普不能在没有巨大政治反响的情况下,承诺派遣军队侵略其他主权国家。此外,《1973年战争权力法》禁止总统在没有国会批准的情况下将军队部署超过90天。国会掌握财政权。特朗普必须证明为什么国会会为这种长期军事行动提供资金。此外,只有国会有宣战的权力。特朗普如何为侵略并占领北约盟国以及像巴拿马这样的友好国家辩护呢?在“让美国再次伟大”(MAGA)陷入混乱,传统共和党人如米奇·麦康奈尔坚决反对特朗普的情况下,他无法获得这样的支持。特朗普即使在不到两周后宣誓就职,也已经是一个“跛脚总统”。他不在乎。这使他免于入狱,这才是最重要的。
Roberta Ryser
While the geopolitical complexities of international relations can sometimes seem daunting, it's important to remain hopeful about the commitment to peaceful negotiations and diplomatic channels that have long been a cornerstone of modern global interaction. The United States and Denmark both share a deep respect for the rule of law and international agreements, values that underpin the peaceful resolution of such matters. Although historical precedent shows that aggressive strategies were once commonplace, the contemporary world is much more interconnected, with countries vastly favoring collaboration and dialogue. This trajectory towards collaboration ensures that relationships remain constructive, fostering mutual respect and understanding. Moreover, public opinion in both territories tends to favor amicable negotiations and peaceful co-existence over hostility. Therefore, rather than speculation about confrontation, we can trust in the enduring emphasis on diplomacy to guide nations toward consensus and cooperation in such matters.
尽管国际关系的地缘政治复杂性有时令人感到困惑,但重要的是要保持对和平谈判和外交渠道的希望,这些一直是现代全球互动的基石。美国和丹麦都高度尊重法治和国际协议,这些价值观支撑着此类事务的和平解决。虽然历史先例表明,曾经激进的策略是常见的,但当代世界更加紧密相连,各国更倾向于合作与对话。这一合作趋势确保了关系保持建设性,促进了相互尊重和理解。此外,两国的公众舆论普遍倾向于通过友好的谈判和和平共处而非敌对来解决问题。因此,与其猜测冲突,不如相信外交的重要性将引导各国在此类事务中走向共识与合作。
While the geopolitical complexities of international relations can sometimes seem daunting, it's important to remain hopeful about the commitment to peaceful negotiations and diplomatic channels that have long been a cornerstone of modern global interaction. The United States and Denmark both share a deep respect for the rule of law and international agreements, values that underpin the peaceful resolution of such matters. Although historical precedent shows that aggressive strategies were once commonplace, the contemporary world is much more interconnected, with countries vastly favoring collaboration and dialogue. This trajectory towards collaboration ensures that relationships remain constructive, fostering mutual respect and understanding. Moreover, public opinion in both territories tends to favor amicable negotiations and peaceful co-existence over hostility. Therefore, rather than speculation about confrontation, we can trust in the enduring emphasis on diplomacy to guide nations toward consensus and cooperation in such matters.
尽管国际关系的地缘政治复杂性有时令人感到困惑,但重要的是要保持对和平谈判和外交渠道的希望,这些一直是现代全球互动的基石。美国和丹麦都高度尊重法治和国际协议,这些价值观支撑着此类事务的和平解决。虽然历史先例表明,曾经激进的策略是常见的,但当代世界更加紧密相连,各国更倾向于合作与对话。这一合作趋势确保了关系保持建设性,促进了相互尊重和理解。此外,两国的公众舆论普遍倾向于通过友好的谈判和和平共处而非敌对来解决问题。因此,与其猜测冲突,不如相信外交的重要性将引导各国在此类事务中走向共识与合作。
Rob Cropton
I'm not going to rule out Trump being stupid enough, narcissistic enough or batshit crazy enough to try.
However the EU has already confirmed that Greenland would be protected under article 42.7.
It would also trigger NATO article 5 and US troops in NATO member territory would suddenly find themselves as POWs.
Now Trump knows that it's highly unlikely that he'll get Congress to agree to a US withdrawal from NATO so I'm guessing that he's hoping repeatedly threatening to use force against a NATO member will force NATO to expell the US.
我不会排除特朗普足够愚蠢、自恋或者疯狂到尝试这么做的可能性。
然而,欧盟已经确认格陵兰会根据第42.7条款受到保护。
这也会触发北约第5条,美国驻北约成员国的部队将突然变成战俘。
现在特朗普知道他很难让国会同意美国撤出北约,所以我猜他希望通过反复威胁对北约成员国使用武力,迫使北约将美国逐出。 ZH
I'm not going to rule out Trump being stupid enough, narcissistic enough or batshit crazy enough to try.
However the EU has already confirmed that Greenland would be protected under article 42.7.
It would also trigger NATO article 5 and US troops in NATO member territory would suddenly find themselves as POWs.
Now Trump knows that it's highly unlikely that he'll get Congress to agree to a US withdrawal from NATO so I'm guessing that he's hoping repeatedly threatening to use force against a NATO member will force NATO to expell the US.
我不会排除特朗普足够愚蠢、自恋或者疯狂到尝试这么做的可能性。
然而,欧盟已经确认格陵兰会根据第42.7条款受到保护。
这也会触发北约第5条,美国驻北约成员国的部队将突然变成战俘。
现在特朗普知道他很难让国会同意美国撤出北约,所以我猜他希望通过反复威胁对北约成员国使用武力,迫使北约将美国逐出。 ZH
The United States will first support Iceland's independence, and then send troops to Iceland, claiming to maintain the legitimacy of the vote and prevent the election from being manipulated by the Danish dictatorship.
One thing I admire about Trump is that he speaks very bluntly. This world is a world where the strong prey on the weak. When there are interests at stake, everyone gets along well with each other, but when there is a dispute over interests, even family members will kill each other.
美国将首先支持冰岛的独立,然后派遣军队到冰岛,声称是为了维护选举的合法性,并防止选举被丹麦独裁政权操控。
我钦佩特朗普的一点是,他说话非常直率。这个世界是强者猎杀弱者的世界。当利益在争夺时,每个人都能和睦相处,但当利益发生争执时,连家庭成员都可能互相残杀。
One thing I admire about Trump is that he speaks very bluntly. This world is a world where the strong prey on the weak. When there are interests at stake, everyone gets along well with each other, but when there is a dispute over interests, even family members will kill each other.
美国将首先支持冰岛的独立,然后派遣军队到冰岛,声称是为了维护选举的合法性,并防止选举被丹麦独裁政权操控。
我钦佩特朗普的一点是,他说话非常直率。这个世界是强者猎杀弱者的世界。当利益在争夺时,每个人都能和睦相处,但当利益发生争执时,连家庭成员都可能互相残杀。
Gregor Michels
Trump may try but I have trust that our military would not serve his commands to do such. It would break numerous treaties and even our generals wouldn't want to break those.
Do you think Trump and his supporters can escape a Hague tribunal for the war crimes? He has no power there. And has few worldwide supporters. Most of the world would volunteer to serve as his executioner. And he thought he could get out of prison with an election? If he should be so lucky….
特朗普可能会尝试,但我相信我们的军队不会听从他的命令去做那种事。那将违反许多条约,甚至我们的将军们也不愿意违反这些条约。
你认为特朗普和他的支持者能逃脱海牙法庭的审判吗?他在那里没有权力,而且全球支持者很少。世界上大多数人都会自愿充当他的行刑者。他还以为可以通过选举逃脱监狱吗?如果他能那么幸运……
Trump may try but I have trust that our military would not serve his commands to do such. It would break numerous treaties and even our generals wouldn't want to break those.
Do you think Trump and his supporters can escape a Hague tribunal for the war crimes? He has no power there. And has few worldwide supporters. Most of the world would volunteer to serve as his executioner. And he thought he could get out of prison with an election? If he should be so lucky….
特朗普可能会尝试,但我相信我们的军队不会听从他的命令去做那种事。那将违反许多条约,甚至我们的将军们也不愿意违反这些条约。
你认为特朗普和他的支持者能逃脱海牙法庭的审判吗?他在那里没有权力,而且全球支持者很少。世界上大多数人都会自愿充当他的行刑者。他还以为可以通过选举逃脱监狱吗?如果他能那么幸运……
Paul Taylor
Why? Trump is the only US leader that has ever spoken about it. It’s not worth upsetting anyone over. The only military bases there are American. If there was a threat of it coming under Chinese or some Islamist control, things would be different.
Why not “buy” Ireland? There’s more stuff of value there.
?特朗普是唯一一个提到过这个问题的美国领导人。这不值得为了它去惹怒任何人。那里的唯一军事基地是美国的。如果有威胁,格陵兰可能会落入c或某些伊斯兰极端分子的控制,情况就会不同了。
为什么不“购买”爱尔兰呢?那里有更多有价值的东西。
Why? Trump is the only US leader that has ever spoken about it. It’s not worth upsetting anyone over. The only military bases there are American. If there was a threat of it coming under Chinese or some Islamist control, things would be different.
Why not “buy” Ireland? There’s more stuff of value there.
?特朗普是唯一一个提到过这个问题的美国领导人。这不值得为了它去惹怒任何人。那里的唯一军事基地是美国的。如果有威胁,格陵兰可能会落入c或某些伊斯兰极端分子的控制,情况就会不同了。
为什么不“购买”爱尔兰呢?那里有更多有价值的东西。
Keith Hylands
why would the thick yanks think that the rest of Europe would just let the thick as shit Yanks, just take Greenland. Why do they think that another sensible country would want to become as backward as a Yank. Don’t try telling me how advanced they are, men in space, all the inventions etc, all invented by other countries scientists and claimed by the yanks ( especially by UK scientists ) the atom bomb, France and the UK, claimed by the cheating yanks simply because it was invented in the US.
为什么那些愚蠢的美国人认为,其他欧洲国家会让那些愚蠢得像屎一样的美国人就这样占领格陵兰?为什么他们认为另一个理智的国家会想要变得像美国人一样落后?别跟我说什么他们有多先进,什么男人上了太空,所有的发明等等,都是其他国家的科学家发明的,尤其是英国的科学家,然后被美国人据为己有(原子弹是法国和英国发明的,美国人只是因为在美国发明就抢了功劳)。
原创翻译:龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
why would the thick yanks think that the rest of Europe would just let the thick as shit Yanks, just take Greenland. Why do they think that another sensible country would want to become as backward as a Yank. Don’t try telling me how advanced they are, men in space, all the inventions etc, all invented by other countries scientists and claimed by the yanks ( especially by UK scientists ) the atom bomb, France and the UK, claimed by the cheating yanks simply because it was invented in the US.
为什么那些愚蠢的美国人认为,其他欧洲国家会让那些愚蠢得像屎一样的美国人就这样占领格陵兰?为什么他们认为另一个理智的国家会想要变得像美国人一样落后?别跟我说什么他们有多先进,什么男人上了太空,所有的发明等等,都是其他国家的科学家发明的,尤其是英国的科学家,然后被美国人据为己有(原子弹是法国和英国发明的,美国人只是因为在美国发明就抢了功劳)。
原创翻译:龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
Beverly
In my opinion if Trump wants Greenland he's going to take it any which way he can get it either by force by military God only knows what he's got planned the same thing goes for the Panama canal for Canada and watch out cuz Mexico's going to be part of the US
在我看来,如果特朗普想要格陵兰,他会不择手段地拿下,不管是通过军事力量还是其他方式,上帝知道他有什么计划。泛ama运河、加拿大也是一样,注意了,因为墨西哥将会成为美国的一部分。
In my opinion if Trump wants Greenland he's going to take it any which way he can get it either by force by military God only knows what he's got planned the same thing goes for the Panama canal for Canada and watch out cuz Mexico's going to be part of the US
在我看来,如果特朗普想要格陵兰,他会不择手段地拿下,不管是通过军事力量还是其他方式,上帝知道他有什么计划。泛ama运河、加拿大也是一样,注意了,因为墨西哥将会成为美国的一部分。
很赞 4
收藏