【下】为什么所有东盟领导人都声称越南入侵了柬埔寨?有多少国家支持柬埔寨抗击越南的入侵?
2019-06-11 飞雪似炀花 17331
原文地址
原文地址:www.quora.com
正文翻译
原创翻译:龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.com 翻译:飞雪似炀花 转载请注明出处
论坛地址:http://www.ltaaa.com/bbs/thread-486546-1-1.html

Why did all ASEAN leaders say that Vietnam invaded Cambodia? How many countries supported Cambodia against Vietnamese invasion?

为什么所有东盟领导人都声称越南入侵了柬埔寨?有多少国家支持柬埔寨抗击越南的入侵?
评论翻译
原创翻译:龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.com 翻译:飞雪似炀花 转载请注明出处
论坛地址:http://www.ltaaa.com/bbs/thread-486546-1-1.html

Terence Helikaon Nunis
Original Author · Sat
You mean Prime Minister.
People die all the time. We are the architects of our own tragedies. Cambodia became Communist through Vietnamese help. Pol Pot then started killing Vietnamese settlers as spies. The previous government did nothing against an extreme Maoist cell which grew due to their focus on anti-colonialism. Everything has consequences.
We did not fight Communist tyranny. As long as they were killing each other, it was not our problem. When they came to our borders, we played the cards we were dealt with.
Cambodia would not be like North Korea. You have a poor grasp of geopolitics. Cambodia would have been depopulated, and the economy would have collapsed totally. Others could have just walked in and seized the resources.
You are arguing on the basis of a misplaced sense of morality. Morality is a societal construct. This is simply the consequences of action, a Darwinian natural selection. It is a lesson to all that we should be stronger as a nation, both economically and militarily; more ruthless with threats to the state; and more focused on the need to build supranational forums.

你是说我们的总理吧。
人终有一死。我们是自己悲剧的建筑师。柬埔寨在越南的帮助下成为了GCZY国家。波尔布特随后开始杀害充当间谍的越南移民。上一届政府没有对一个极端的毛派分子采取任何行动,后来这个毛派分子便因为专注于反殖民主义事业而不断获得壮大。每件事都有其后果。
我们没有反抗GCZY的暴政。只要他们互相残杀,那就不是我们的问题。但是当他们来到我们的边境时,我们就要去处理它了。
柬埔寨不会像朝鲜那样。你对地缘政治知之甚少。柬埔寨人口将会减少,经济将会完全崩溃。其他国家可以直接闯进去,攫取它的资源。
你的辩论是基于一种错位的道德感。道德是一种社会的结构。这只是行动的结果,是达尔文式的自然选择。对所有人来说,这都是一个教训,我们作为一个国家,在经济和军事上都应该变得更加强大;应对国家的威胁应该更加无情;并且更关注建立超国家交流平台的必要性。

Stefan Onk
Sat · 1 upvote
Prime Minister, right. You are right that Cambodia wouldn’t be North Korea, however we do not know what Cambodia would look like today with a Chinese backing and no Vietnamese intervention. I am sure ASEAN countries could still consider it as a threat.
However, you would justify the Holocaust with a straight face in a given situation. No further questions.

没错,是总理。柬埔寨不会成为朝鲜,但是我们不知道如果没有中国的支持,没有越南的干预,柬埔寨今天会是什么样子。我相信东盟国家仍然可以把它视为一种威胁。
然而,你们却会在一个特定的场合中,面无表情地为这场大屠杀进行辩护。我没有其他问题了。

Terence Helikaon Nunis
Original Author · Sat
Cambodia was never a threat. The threat was Communist Vietnam. You really should pay attention to the discussion if you want to comment.

柬埔寨从来都不是一个威胁。威胁来自GCZY的越南。如果你想发表评论,你真的应该关注其中的讨论内容。

Terence Helikaon Nunis
Original Author · Sat
No. Cambodia was a non-issue. It is a landlocked, poor nation of no geopolitical consequence then. Vietnam, on the other hand, was a contending power. This was always about the containment of Vietnam. And it worked. I get the impression that you do not understand the issues here, and are arguing out of needless emotion. Emotive arguments are never cogent nor coherent.

不。柬埔寨不是一个问题。它是一个贫穷的内陆国家,没有什么地缘政治影响力。另一方面,越南则是一个野心勃勃的大国。这项政策一直以来都是为了遏制越南。它奏效了。我认为你不了解这里的问题,而只是出于不必要的情绪而进行争论。感情用事的争论既不令人信服,也不清晰明了。

Stefan Onk
Sat · 1 upvote
Cambodia is not landlocked, Laos is. I am fully aware that back then it was about Vietnam, I just said that Cambodia could potentially be a threat today if the regime wasn’t stopped by Vietnam. It’s impossible to know that this could not have happen, but I am not even emphasizing this one.
Since you neglect ethical values and behavior in general I recommend you to find mental help.

柬埔寨不是内陆国家,老挝才是。我很清楚那时候的政策是针对越南的,我刚才说过,如果越南不阻止柬埔寨政权,柬埔寨今天可能会成为一个潜在的威胁。我们不可能知道这到底会不会发生,但我甚至都没有强调这一点。由于你忽视了普遍意义上的道德价值和行为,我建议你应该去寻求精神上的帮助。

Terence Helikaon Nunis
Original Author · Sat
I stand corrected on that.
You are mistaken on the part that it is impossible to know. People, in large numbers, are eminently predictable. Cambodia dies not have the population base, nor the military capability to be a threat. The regime would have been considered a threat if it attempted to export their Maoism, but they were destroying themselves quite efficiently.

我的看法是正确的。
关于我们无法预知这一点,你弄错了。当人的数量达到一定规模时,他们其实是很容易预测的。柬埔寨既没有人口基础,也没有可以构成威胁的军事能力。如果这个政权试图输出他们的毛主义思想,它会被认为是一个威胁,但他们当时却正在相当有效地毁灭自己。

Le Tat Dat
Sat
Pol Pot was hiding in Thailand, of couse VPA would chase after him but he was under Thailand protection. I could say if Thai soldiers got killed by fighting Vietnam, they died for a murderous regime.

波尔布特当时藏匿在泰国,越南人民军当然会去追捕他,但他受到了泰国的保护。我可以说,如果泰国士兵在与越南的战斗中丧生,他们其实是为了一个凶残的政权而死的。

Terence Helikaon Nunis
Original Author · Sat
Irrelevant. There is this thing called international law.

这一点无关紧要。请记住,有一种东西叫做国际法。

Le Tat Dat
Sat
True. Thailand could stop Pol Pot from enter Thailand but they chose to protect them, allow them to cross their border to attack Vietnamese.

没错。泰国本可以阻止波尔布特进入泰国,但他们却选择了去保护他们,允许他们越境袭击越南人。

Terence Helikaon Nunis
Original Author · Sat · 1 upvote
ASEAN chose to arm every faction fighting Vietnam. That was the point of the exercise. There is no good or bad in politics, only national interest.

东盟选择了武装每一个与越南作战的派别。这就是这种做法的重点。政治没有好坏之分,只有国家利益之分。

Th? Nguy?n
Sat · 2 upvotes
Even supporting a murderous regime, correct?

甚至是支持一个凶残的政权,对吗?

Terence Helikaon Nunis
Original Author · Sat
You forget that the Vietnamese Communists killed a lot of people too. How are both sides different?

你忘了越共也杀了很多人。双方有何不同?

Th? Nguy?n
Sat
I repeat: We didn’t kill off 1/4th of any population whatsoever. Any proof for any Vietnamese Communist’s massacre? The only “massacre” that you people keep going on about is Hu?, which was so chaotic that even the people there weren’t even sure about how many really died by the NLF’s hands: Massacre at Hu? - Wikipedia
The funniest thing is that you people are still believing that old piece of Cold War propaganda when the US, the creator of the Domino’s Theory, has largely dropped it and moved on. Like, what kind of communism were you stopping when the Khmer Rouge WAS the Cambodian Communists?

我再强调一遍:我们可没有消灭任何种群的四分之一的人口。有越共实施屠杀的证据吗?你们这些家伙一直挂在嘴上的唯一一场“大屠杀”就是顺化屠杀了,当时的局势非常混乱,人们甚至都不能确定有多少人是真的死于民族解放阵线之手。
最有趣的是,你们这些人仍然相信冷战时期的过时宣传,而多米诺骨牌理论的创始者美国却基本上已经放弃了它,并且向前看了。比如,当红色高棉还是柬共的时候,你阻止了哪种GCZY?

Terence Helikaon Nunis
Original Author · Sat · 1 upvote
This is not a murder competition, and you are digressing from the point. The issue, for ASEAN, was the threat of Vietnamese aggression then, and the proxy war between the USSR and China. The Khmer Rouge is an incidental factor.
Like I said earlier, we make no apologies. We did what was necessary to secure our position, and security. It is irrelevant how many Cambodians and Vietnamese died. That is what nations states do.

这不是屠杀比赛,你离题了。对东盟来说,当时的问题是越南侵略的威胁,以及苏联和中国之间的代理人战争。红色高棉是一个偶然因素。
就像我之前说的,我们不会道歉的。我们做了必要的事情来确保我们的地位和安全。柬埔寨和越南有多少人死亡无关紧要。这就是民族国家所做的事情。

Th? Nguy?n
Sat
“You forget that the Vietnamese Communists killed a lot of people too. How are both sides different?”
It was you who turned it into a body count competition in the first place.
And that’s why I’m telling you the “Vietnamese aggression” thing was a Cold War rhetoric best left behind. We didn’t had any expansionist ideology at all. We never asked for any apology from ASEAN. We understand what they had to do as small countries. We literally JOINED ASEAN. We only ask for one when LHL literally dug up a 4-decade-old rhetoric against 2 other countries in an unrelated eulogy to a random Thai generals.

“你忘了越共也杀了很多人。双方有何不同?”
是你首先把它变成了一场尸体计数比赛的。
这就是为什么我要告诉你们“越南的侵略”是冷战时期最好的宣传。我们根本没有任何扩张主义的意识形态。我们从未要求东盟作出任何道歉。我们理解他们作为小国必须做些什么。我们确实加入了东盟。只有当李显龙在一位无关的泰国将军的葬礼悼词中又重新提及这样一种针对其他两个国家的40年前的宣传措辞时,我们才要求道歉。

Terence Helikaon Nunis
Original Author · Sat
The Prime Minister of Singapore is not going to give an apology. That would imply that ASEAN was wrong then. I agree that he should not have dug it up.

新加坡总理不会道歉的。这么做就意味着东盟当时是错的。但我同意他不应该重提旧事。

Th? Nguy?n
Sat
We asked for an apology for his foot-in-mouth-titis, not for ASEAN’s past action. The netizens only dug the entire thing up because LHL dug it up in the first place.

我们要求他为自己的措辞不当道歉,而不是为东盟过去的行为道歉。网友们之所以把整件事都挖出来,是因为李显龙一开始就提到了这件事。

Terence Helikaon Nunis
Original Author · Sat · 1 upvote
And you are not going to get it. It is naive to expect that. Hurt feelings have no currency in international relations. When a head of state apologises for mentioning a course of action, it implies that said courseof action was politically wrong. It also implies that all the countries involved in said course of action were wrong. A government spokesman will explain it away, and we will all move on with the next news cycle.
If, however, Vietnam were a major trading partner, or a regional power, and the political interest dictated thus, Singapore would apologise. However, the power dynamics are not in that favour.

你不会得到这种道歉的。抱有这样的期望是天真的。受伤的感情在国际关系中没有任何价值。当一位国家元首为提及某一种行动路线而道歉时,这意味着该行动路线在政治上是错误的。这也意味着所有参与上述行动的国家都是错误的。政府发言人将对此作出解释,我们将继续进入下一个新闻热点。
然而,如果越南是一个主要贸易伙伴或地区强国,而政治利益决定了这一点,新加坡就会道歉了。然而,权力格局并非如此。

Th? Nguy?n
Fri · 5 upvotes
Exactly zero evidence. It was just a Cold War era propaganda expanded from the Domino's Theory, which has been repeatedly proven to be false.
The thing is, if Vietnam had really had that kind of ambition, it wouldn't have stopped at Cambodia regardless of any ASEAN, China, or US intervention. The US public no longer had any taste for a SEA war. China been there done that. Back then, ASEAN military was bloody weak compared to the Vietnamese military, which used to be the fourth largest standing army at the time. If we had really had that expansionist mindset, nothing could have realistically stopped us.
Vietnamese people are just sick of wars. We don't like wars. We dont fight wars unless it was literally foisted onto us. The Khmer Rouge killing field and their massacres along our borders, we have known that and been the target of that since 1975. But when we tried to tell UN and ask for UN intervention, they shut us down completely and said that we faked the massacres as a front for our “expansionist” ambition. So after 3 years and 30 000 Vietnamese civilians dead, we went to war against the Khmer Rouge and only did the absolute minimum necessary to dispose the Khmer Rouge.
I can stand the word “invasion" because it's English usage can be a good thing like the Normandy invasion, unlike its official Vietnamese equivalent of “x?m l??c", which cannot be used in any positive way. But the timing, the occasion of the post, the purposeful way he dug up the “Vietnamese expansionism" context, the radio silence, and the post by a guy in your Parliament calling people to spread that little piece of Cold War propaganda, which literally said Vietnam “ruined” Cambodia, I cannot stand it.

完全是毫无证据。这只不过是冷战时期的宣传,从多米诺骨牌理论扩展而来,而多米诺骨牌理论已多次被证明是错误的。
问题是,如果越南真的有这样的野心,无论东盟、中国或美国的任何干预,它都不会止步于柬埔寨。美国公众不再对参与东南亚地区的战争有任何兴趣。中国则已经进入了该地区。当时,东盟军队与越南军队相比是非常弱小的,越南军队在当时是全球第四大常备军。如果我们真的有那种扩张主义的心态,没有什么能真正阻止我们。
越南人民厌倦了战争。我们不喜欢战争。我们不想打仗,除非逼不得已。自1975年以来,我们已经知道红色高棉政权的修罗场及其在我国边界的屠杀行动,并且一直以来都成为了它的目标。但当我们试图告诉联合国并要求联合国介入时,他们让我们闭嘴,说我们伪造了屠杀,以此作为我们“扩张主义”野心的幌子。因此,在3年时间里,有3万越南平民丧生,我们对红色高棉政权发动了战争,而且只实施了处置红色高棉政权所必需的最低限度的措施。
我可以忍受“入侵”这个词,因为在英语用法里,它可以像诺曼底登陆是一件好事,而不像越南语当中的“侵略”,后者完全不具备任何积极的意义。但李显龙发表这篇文章的时机、场合、他重提“越南扩张”背景的有目的的方式、媒体的沉默,以及你们议会中的某个人呼吁人们传播这篇冷战式的宣传文章——其中直言越南“毁掉了”柬埔寨——这件事,都是我所不能忍受的。

Terence Helikaon Nunis
Original Author · Sat · 1 upvote
You will just have to get used to the fact that different countries have different views on different issues. The rest of us are not subjected to the Communist Party's state propaganda. ASEAN, then, saw it differently, and acted accordingly.

你必须习惯不同的国家对不同的问题抱持着不同的看法。我们其他人不受GC国家宣传的影响。东盟对此有不同的看法,并采取了相应的行动。

Terence Helikaon Nunis
Original Author · Sat · 1 upvote
Again, that is also irrelevant, since it is an opinion, and a childish attempt at an insult. The role of the government is to secure the interests of its own country. We have done well, by being more ruthless, more single-minded, than everyone else. That is necessary to succeed.

同样,这也无关紧要,因为这是一种观点,是一种充满孩子气的侮辱他人的企图。政府的作用是维护自己国家的利益。我们做得很好,因为我们比其他人更无情,更专心致志。这是成功的必要条件。

Terence Helikaon Nunis
Original Author · Sat · 1 upvote
I am a political realist, and a sociopath. Since when, in any of my writings, have I ever said anything about standing up for weaker countries, or anything of that sort? We are all here to win, to succeed, and if that means sacrifices have to be made, so be it. That is what international politics is about. Even Vietnam is in ASEAN because of mutual interest. ASEAN standing up to China is better for Vietnam, than Vietnam alone standing up to China. There are no good guys, I friends, only mutual interest.

我是一名政治现实主义者,也是一个反社会主义者。从什么时候开始,在我的任何一篇文章中,我说过要为较弱的国家挺身而出,或者类似的话吗?我们所作的都是为了胜利,为了成功,如果这意味着必须要做出牺牲,那就牺牲吧。这就是国际政治的意义所在。甚至越南也因为共同利益而加入东盟。东盟对抗中国比越南单独对抗中国更好。世界上没有什么好人,我的朋友,只有共同的利益。

Th? Nguy?n
Sat · 1 upvote
“Irrelevant. There is this thing called international law.” - Also you when Vietnamese people tell you that we did it for our survivals.

“这一点无关紧要。请记住,有一种东西叫做国际法。”
那么当越南人告诉你我们这样做是为了生存时,你也应该记住。

Terence Helikaon Nunis
Original Author · Sat
Stating that Vietnam invaded Cambodia is not against international law.

你倒是说说看越南入侵柬埔寨如何不违反国际法了?

Th? Nguy?n
Sat
It wasn’t about international law. Supporting a murderous regime is also against international laws. It was about how when it comes to national security, you think that only Singapore’s national security is a legitimate reason for military action. You outright dismissed our national security and the 30 000 dead Vietnamese civilians at the border as “irrelevant”!

这与国际法无关。支持一个凶残的政权也违反了国际法。这与国家安全有关,你认为只有新加坡的国家安全才是采取军事行动的正当理由。你完全无视我们的国家安全,认为边界上3万越南平民的死亡是“无关紧要的”!

Terence Helikaon Nunis
Original Author · Sat · 1 upvote
I am not defending anything. I mentioned international law because that is how the game is played. International law means whatever the winner needs it to be. We won.

我不是在为任何事情进行辩护。我提到国际法是因为这就是游戏的规则。国际法意味着它可以是胜利者需要的任何模样。毕竟我们是胜利者。

Chan Wy
Fri · 2 upvotes including Terence Helikaon Nunis
Thank you for putting everything into perspective. I remember clearly than that if Thailand border is breached, Singapore will have to support Malaysia army totally for the last stand.

谢谢你,你把一切都看得很透彻。我清楚地记得,如果泰国边境被攻破,新加坡将不得不全力支持马来西亚的军队。

Le Anh Tuan
Fri
Tks for bringing another context from yours/Singaporean view but it may not be a good idea for the PM to bring up that painful/controvesary period of Asean history while Asean needs more collaboration than division at the moment.

谢谢你从你们新加坡人的角度阐述了另一种背景,但是对于李显龙总理来说,提出东盟历史上那段痛苦和有争议的时期可能不是一个好主意,而东盟目前需要更多的合作而不是分裂。

Terence Helikaon Nunis
Original Author · Fri · 1 upvote
I agree. I see no benefit in digging up old wounds.

我同意。我看不出揭开旧伤疤有什么好处。

o Tranlong
Sat
We shouldn't send any troops to cambodia, at first General said that, well i guess we shouldnt send our people either. But things over control when Khmer killed so many Vietnamese people and even attacking into Vietnam land. By having support by China, Us, Thailand and Singapore. Those countries are responsible for over 3mil Cambodian killed. Vietnam did not invaded Cambodia, it is simple as we were self defense situation. It is funny that they benefits their own and support the massacre millions of lives. Good on you singapore and thailand those puppet of china and us.

我们不应该向柬埔寨派兵,一开始越南的将军就说,我想我们不应该派兵。但是当红色高棉政权杀害了这么多越南人民,甚至攻击越南的领土时,事情就失控了。它得到了中国、美国、泰国和新加坡的支持。这些国家要为超过300万柬埔寨人的死亡负责。越南没有入侵柬埔寨,道理很简单,因为我们当时处于自卫状态。有趣的是,他们却为了自己的利益,去支持针对数百万人的大屠杀。恭喜你们,新加坡和泰国,你们这些中国和美国的傀儡。

Terence Helikaon Nunis
Original Author · Sat · 1 upvote from Vo Tranlong
You forgot the part where Vietnam initially supported Pol Pot, and clandestinely helped him to power.

你忘记了越南最初是支持波尔布特并且秘密帮助他掌权的那部分历史了?

Vo Tranlong
Sat
Yes! We teach them guerrilla stategies. We teach them to improve their military fighting style. But we did not support their terrorirsm!!

是的!我们教他们游击战术。我们教他们改进他们的军事战斗风格。但是我们不支持他们的恐怖主义!

John Ng
Sat · 1 upvote
Vn was a salary man doing the Russian job (Ru rival China). Overwhelming Vn forces would have taken sea if not attacked at China border. Was Vn miscalculation Ru cant attack China at north border cause hard weather in feb/79. Miscalculation then carried expensive price with sanctions in a decade and worst poverty. Few politicians made mistake, innocent citizens paid for it! Sad being salary man and communist brothers killing each other.

越南充当的是苏联的打手(而苏联的对手则是中国)。如果不是在中国边境受到攻击,压倒性的越南军队将会占领东南亚。因为1979年2月的恶劣天气,苏联无法在北部边境地区攻击中国。当时的误判带来了十年来代价高昂的制裁和极端的贫困。少数的政客犯了错,而无辜的公民却要为此付出了代价!可悲的是,这个打手在和它的GCZY兄弟自相残杀。

Hieu Do Trung
Sun
this ignore the fact that Vietnam is a war torn country(just reunite in 1975 after 100 years war), and it has no incentive to invade Cambodia without being harass daily. Saying Vietnam was a threat was pure ignorance.

这忽略了越南是一个饱受战争蹂躏的国家的事实(在经历了100年的战争后,越南于1975年重新统一),如果不是每天都受到骚扰,它就没有动机入侵柬埔寨。说越南是一个威胁纯粹是无知的言论。

Ngoc Vu
Sat
Vietnam vs khmer rouge was a “proxy war” . ??? Do you even understand what proxy war mean?

越南对红色高棉政权的战争是一场“代理人战争”?你知道代理人战争是什么意思吗?

Terence Helikaon Nunis
Original Author · Sat
Obviously. Since I said it.

很明显,自从我说出口的时候我就知道了。

Ngoc Vu
1h ago
Vietnam didn't attack khmer rouge under Soviet union’s order. It attacked because khmer rouge did attack first and kill thousand Vietnamese. How it's a proxy war?

越南不是受命于苏联而攻击红色高棉政权的。它发动攻击是因为红色高棉政权首先发动了攻击,杀死了数千名越南人。这怎么会是代理人战争呢?

Terence Helikaon Nunis
Original Author · 1h ago
My explanation is already there, in my answer.

我的解释已经在我的答案里了。

Ngoc Vu
1h ago
“We must also remember that the fight between Vietnam and the Khmer Rouge was a proxy war between the Soviets and the Chinese Communists, both nuclear powers” it's not an explaination. It's just merely assumption on your part.

“我们还必须记住,越南和红色高棉政权之间的战争是苏联和土共之间的代理人战争,两者都是核大国。”这只是你的假设。

Terence Helikaon Nunis
Original Author · 1h ago
Read the rest.

读一读剩余的部分吧。

Ngoc Vu
1h ago
Has Vietnam attacked khmer rouge because of Soviet said so? NO! It attacked for it own interest and to save the Viet people.
“the rest” what?
Whether or not the support from Soviet. We would attack khmer rouge anyway.
It is not a war over the ideology.
How do you define “proxy war”

越南攻击红色高棉是因为苏联这么说的吗?不!它是为了自己的利益和拯救越南人民而发动了攻击。
“剩余的部分”是什么?
不管有没有得到苏联的支持,无论如何,我们都会攻击红色高棉政权。
这不是一场意识形态战争。
你是如何定义“代理人战争”的?

Khanh Nguyen
52m ago
One famous quote "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evils is for good men to do nothing". Not only Singapore did nothing to stop genocide but also supporting the evils and that is a fact that was not of course mentioned in his heroism message .. a hypocrite I'd say.
Playing a card along with evils was not the only option that Singapore had to choose, sadly that Singapore choose playing along with evils but strikingly endorsed and praised by many Singaporeans like you.
Imagine that a mass killing in your neighborhood, instead of stopping the killing, you even hand out more weapons and ammo to the evil for further killings .. and that was exactly what your government did back then.
Where do your moral stand ? if an evil comes to Singapore and make killing fields, how would you feel if everyone else not just stand by and do nothing but also supporting the evil to continue killing you ?
Sadly, That's world we are living in - people will sleep with evils to achieve their goals/objectives.

有一句名言是这么说的:“邪恶获胜的唯一必要条件是好人束手旁观。”
新加坡不仅没有采取任何措施阻止这种种族灭绝,而且还支持了罪恶一方,当然,它的英雄主义叙事中并没有提到这一点。我只能说它是个伪君子。
与罪恶为伍并不是新加坡必须做出的唯一选择,可悲的是,新加坡还是选择了与罪恶为伍,但却得到许多像你这样的新加坡人的大力支持和赞扬。
想象一下,如果你的社区发生了大规模杀戮,你非但没有停止杀戮,反而向邪恶势力提供了更多的武器和弹药,让他们继续杀戮。而这正是你们的政府当时所做的事情。
你的道德立场是什么?如果一个恶魔来到新加坡,制造了修罗场,如果其他人不只是袖手旁观,什么都不做,而且还支持这个恶魔继续杀害你们,你会有什么感觉?
可悲的是,这就是我们所生活的世界——人们会为了实现自己的目的而与罪恶为伍。

Terence Helikaon Nunis
Original Author · 41m ago
The entire basis of our foreign policy is not to depend on others to help. Countries get involved out of self-interest, not morality. We have to make it within their interest to help us. There is no such thing as altruism in international politics, only gain and profit.

我们外交政策的全部基础是不依赖别人的帮助。各国参与进来是出于自身利益,而不是道德规范。我们必须在他们的利益范围内帮助我们自己。国际政治中没有利他主义,只有所得与利益。

Khanh Nguyen
29m ago
Thank you, you just reiterate my statement “ Sadly, that’s the world we are living in - people will sleep with evils to achieve their goals/objectives”

谢谢你,你只是印证了我的说法:“可悲的是,这就是我们生活的世界——人们会为了实现自己的目的而与罪恶为伍。”

答案三:

Bill Chen, We were soldiers once and young
Answered 18h ago



See the dark blue patch? That’s ASEAN in 1978. The green patch is Vietnam, while the ice-blue next to it is Cambodia.

看到深蓝色的部分了吗?那就是1978年的东盟。绿色的部分是越南,而旁边的冰蓝色部分则是柬埔寨。

With this map in our minds, let’s do a bit of point and tell.

有了这张地图,就让我们来做几点说明。

First, ASEAN is not a defense alliance like NATO. There is no one-for-all, all-for-one arrangement in armed conflict. Instead, the ASEAN Declaration sets out co-operation, amity, and non-interference as basic founding principles.

一,东盟不是北约那样的防务联盟。在武装冲突中没有一种集体防卫的安排机制。相反,《东盟宣言》将合作、友好和互不干涉列为基本原则。

Here I would like to note the difference between principle and policy. A principle is a rule which MUST be followed whereas a policy is a guideline that CAN be followed. In other words, principles are red lines that must not be crossed.

在这里,我想指出原则和政策的区别。原则是必须遵循的规则,而策略是可以遵循的准则。换句话说,原则是不能逾越的红线。

In the case of ASEAN, the basis for the existence of ASEAN disappears if any of the founding principles are violated.

就东盟而言,如果违反任何创始的原则,东盟存在的基础就会消失。

Two, Vietnam joined ASEAN in 1995, Cambodia followed in 1999. Their accession means they FULLY ACCEPT the principles of co-operation, amity, and non-interference. They are still ASEAN members today.

二,越南于1995年加入东盟,柬埔寨于1999年加入。他们的加入意味着他们完全接受了合作、友好和不干涉的原则。他们今天仍然是东盟成员国。

In practice, the Vietnam and Cambodia of 2019 would have NO CHOICE but to support ASEAN’s view that 1978 Vietnam's presence in Cambodia was illegal, and the Association’s vigorous UN lobbying in the subsequent decade on behalf of the government in exile headed by Prince Sihanouk. ASEAN operates exclusively by consensus.

实际上,2019年的越南和柬埔寨别无选择,只能支持东盟的观点,即1978年越南在柬埔寨的存在是非法的,以及东盟在随后的10年里代表流亡的西哈努克亲王领导的政府在联合国所展开的积极游说。东盟的运作完全依靠协商一致。

Three. It is telling the Cambodian occupation by Vietnam formally ended in 1991 with the signing of the Paris Peace Accords. Vietnamese troops had already begun withdrawing from Cambodia in the late 80s, as support from the Soviet Union waned in the sunset years of the Soviet bloc.

三、它告诉我们,随着1991年巴黎和平协议的签署,越南对柬埔寨的占领正式宣告结束。越南军队早在上世纪80年代末就开始从柬埔寨撤军了,当时苏联的支持力量在苏联解体前的最后几年里正在逐渐减少。

Vietnam didn’t care about liberation. It was a sponsored proxy war.

越南不在乎什么解放。这是一场由代理人发起的战争。

Does anyone seriously entertain illusions that Brezhnev cared about several million Cambodian skulls when his former boss Stalin ordered the Holodomor that starved 7–10 million Ukrainians to death or the mass deportation of millions more kulaks, more than half who died as a direct result?
Welcome to great power politics.

当勃列日涅夫的前上司斯大林导致了饿死700万至1000万乌克兰人的乌克兰大饥荒,或将数百万富农驱逐出境(其中半数以上的富农因此而死亡)的时候,有没有人认真地想过,勃列日涅夫会在乎数百万柬埔寨人的头颅?
欢迎来到大国政治的世界。

Four, this man:

四、这个人:



had this to say about PM Lee’s remarks on General Prem’s passing:
His statement reflects Singapore’s position then in support of the genocidal regime and the wish for its return to Cambodia. Singapore was the host of the tripartite meeting that led to the formation of the coalition government of the Democratic Kampuchea, which had prolonged the war and the suffering of Cambodian people for another 10 years. It’s an act against the survival of the Cambodian people. His statement is also an insult to the sacrifice of the Vietnamese military volunteers who helped to liberate Cambodia from the genocidal regime. His statement reveals to the Singaporean people and the world that leader of Singapore had indeed contributed to the massacre of Cambodian people.
—Hun Sen, 2019

“关于李显龙总理对泰国将军的悼词,我想说的是:他的发言反映了新加坡当时支持种族灭绝政权的立场以及希望该政权返回柬埔寨的愿望。新加坡是促使民主柬埔寨联合政府成立的三方会议的东道国,该政府把战争和柬埔寨人民的苦难又延长了10年。这是一种危害柬埔寨人民生存的行为。他的发言也是对帮助柬埔寨从种族灭绝政权中解放出来的越南军事志愿人员的牺牲的侮辱。他的发言向新加坡人民和全世界表明,新加坡领导人确实为屠杀柬埔寨人民的事业作出了贡献。”——洪森,2019年



This is a young Hun Sen in the 1970s. He joined the Khmer Rouge in 1970. The Cambodian genocide happened between 1975–1979. Hun Sen jumped ship and emerged as the DPM of the Vietnamese-installed puppet government in 1979.

这是70年代的年轻的洪森。他于1970年加入红色高棉政权。柬埔寨的种族灭绝发生在1975年至1979年间。1979年,洪森改换阵营,成为了越南建立的傀儡政府的副总理。

Read his remarks again, particularly “contributed to the massacre of Cambodian people”.

再读一遍他的评论,特别是“为屠杀柬埔寨人民的事业作出了贡献”。

If I were him, I would not have translated the Cambodian text into English. This was meant for domestic consumption.

如果我是他,我就不会把柬埔寨文译成英文。这是为了国内消费而撰写的。

As for liberation, guess which country’s orbit is Cambodia in today?

至于解放,猜猜柬埔寨现在是哪个国家的附庸?
收藏译文