美国网友讨论：美国应该进行更多的对外干预吗？

What do you make of some conservatives' argument that intervention around the world is necessary because the gap we leave would be filled by regimes like China and Russia, which would inevitably harm us and other countries?

一些保守派人士认为，美国在世界各地进行干预是必要的，因为如果不这么干，我们留下的空缺会被中国和俄罗斯等政权填补，这将不可避免地伤害我们和其他国家，对此你怎么看？

cosmicmangobear
Libertarian Distributist
That's the point of having an international community. So we don't have to keep dealing with power vacuums caused by the rise and fall of successive hegemonic powers. The burden of keeping peace shouldn't just fall on one country, it's not sustainable.

这就是拥有一个“国际社会”的意义所在。这样我们就不必一直处理因历代霸权国家的兴衰而造成的权力真空。维持和平的重任不应该只落在一个国家身上，这是不可能持续的。
Preebus
Many conservatives also disagree with that though. Just read an article talking about how many of them don't like NATO.

不过很多保守派也不同意这一点。刚刚读了一篇文章，谈到他们中的许多人不喜欢北约。
 
halibfrisk
There’s essentially two strands of thought:
Neo-conservatives - guys like Grover Norquist who think that the US can “run the world for 2% of GDP”, any international agreements including NATO are an encumbrance on American power and should be shrugged off, unless they are occasionally useful. Iraq snd Afghanistan proved these guys have no clothes.
Liberal interventionists - global institutions and the rule of law, the US should intervene around the world in partnership with allies snd institutions like the UN, even when US interests aren’t directly at stake, like in Libya when the Gadaffi regime was falling or “peacekeeping” in Somalia.
In the long run Americas declining share of global GDP means it will be forced to work more with allies.

基本上有两股思想。
新保守主义者--像格罗弗-诺奎斯特这样的人认为美国可以"用2%的国内生产总值来管理世界"，包括北约在内的任何国际协议都是对美国的负担，应该被甩掉，除非它们偶尔有用。伊拉克和阿富汗的事证明了这些人只是自欺欺人。
自由干预主义者--认同全球机构和法治，认为美国应该与盟友和联合国等机构合作，在世界各地进行干预，即使美国的利益并不直接受到威胁，比如在利比亚的卡达菲政权倒台时的干预，或者在索马里的"维和"。
从长远来看，美国在全球GDP中份额的下降意味着它将被迫与盟友进行更多的合作。
 
thisispoopoopeepee
In the long run Americas declining share of global GDP means it will be forced to work more with allies
You can see that now with Ukraine where Europeans are doing some heavy lifting.

“从长远来看，美洲在全球GDP中的份额下降意味着它将被迫与盟友进行更多的合作。”
你现在可以看到，在乌克兰，欧洲人也开始要干一些重活了。
 
modelcitizen_zero
This is not a function of declining American power/influence. It’s is Europe’s backyard (or back porch) and thus their direct responsibility.

这不是美国实力/影响力下降的体现。这里本就是欧洲的后院（或后廊），因此他们肯定要直接负起责任。
 
seahawkguy
Most conservatives I know do not want the US to be the worlds police. That’s why Trump spent so much time shutting down ongoing wars and not starting any new ones.

我认识的大多数保守派都不希望美国成为世界警察。这就是为什么特朗普花了那么多时间来关闭正在进行的战争，而不是发动任何新的战争。
 
Ya_Boi_Konzon
Except for the fact that NATO is a prime example of the burden of keeping peace just falling on one country.

北约就是将维持和平的重任只落在一个国家身上的典型例子。
 
fkneneu
Liberal in European sense
Oh sorry, which country have triggered article 5 and recieved from massive support NATO allies?
Please have some respect for your NATO allies who had soldiers die at your request.

哦，真对不起，请问是哪个国家触发了北约第5条并得到了北约盟国的大量支持？
请尊重你的北约盟友，他们的士兵在你的要求下赴死。
 
Dangime
They don't like NATO because most NATO countries don't hit their military contribution targets.

他们不喜欢北约，因为大多数北约国家都没有达到他们的军事贡献目标。
 
23oncemore
That's a justification, not the reason.
They don't like NATO because the majority of NATO allies are socialist/liberal/whatever. Many modern conservatives are more philosophically aligned with NATO opponents than NATO members.

这只是一个理由，不是原因。
他们不喜欢北约，只是因为北约的大多数盟友都是社会主义/自由主义/什么的。许多现代保守派在政治哲学上跟北约的反对者反而比跟北约成员更一致。
 
Dangime
They can afford to be "socialist" because they don't spend enough on their own self defense.

他们能够承担"社会主义"，是因为他们没有在自己的防卫上花足够多的钱。
 
UniverseCatalyzed
Define "enough." Does that mean - able to force project anywhere on the globe and fight multi-theater conventional wars, like the US military aims to do, or through a combination of small but efficient advanced militaries and nuclear deterrent prevent invasion of their homelands from hostile forces? Because one is much much cheaper than the other.

定义一下什么叫"足够"。这是否意味着--能够像美军的目标那样，在全球任何地方进行武力投射并开打多场常规战争；还是通过小型但高效的先进军队和核威慑力的组合来防止敌对势力入侵其家园？因为一个比另一个要便宜得多。
 
Dangime
I assume Europe likes to import and export stuff. So you need a navy / air force that can accomplish that goal, or an equal contribution on that level to achieve that goal with allies. Are you going to nuke some random 3rd world pirates if they choke off the straights and raid European shipping? Plus, looks like Russia is a thing again. Gonna need at least a core of strong ground force, plus reservists that could be called up for a major conflict.

我假设欧洲喜欢进口和出口东西。所以你需要一支能够实现这个目标的海军/空军，或者在该水平上与盟友一起实现该目标的同等贡献。如果一个第三世界的海盗封锁了海峡并袭击了欧洲的航运，你会用核弹攻击他们吗？另外，看起来俄罗斯又成为了一个问题。所以欧洲至少需要一个强大的地面部队的核心，加上可以在重大冲突中被征召的预备役人员。
 
UniverseCatalyzed
Seems like both sides of the shipping equation (sender and receiver) have an interest in stopping piracy (therefore leveraging at least 2 militaries for anti-piracy), and let's be honest stopping pirates is a much smaller ask than US-military level nation building. Russia is having a difficult time fighting a conventional war against Ukraine, fighting a war against any NATO nation is not in the cards for Putin barring the use of unconventional weapons.
I'm simply not sure there is a compelling reason for states without nation-building ambitions to maintain large standing conventional militaries - piracy is relatively trifling and has strong cooperative effects (easy to ally with other nations against pirates) and the days of major power direct action are over. Technological force multipliers like drones, electronic warfare, and MAD have rendered the "million man army" obselete, and that's a good thing - more money for schools and infrastructure, less for bombs and bullets.

似乎航运方程式中的双方（发送方和接收方）都有兴趣阻止海盗行为（因此至少可以利用两支军队来打击海盗），而且说实话，阻止海盗的支出比对应美国军事水平的国防建设要小得多。俄罗斯对乌克兰的常规战争都很难进行下去，除非使用非常规武器，所以对任何北约国家进行战争对普京来说都是不现实的。
我不确定一个没有重新塑造民族认同野心的国家是否有令人信服的理由来维持庞大的常规军队--海盗行为相对较小，而且有很强的合作效应（很容易与其他国家结盟一起打击海盗），大国直接行动的日子已经过去。像无人机、电子战和MAD这样的技术力量倍增器已经使"百万大军"这个概念过时了，而这是件好事--更多的钱用于学校和基础设施，更少的钱用于炸弹和子弹。
 
23oncemore
No, they can afford to be socialist because they spend less per capita on health care than we do. Really they should be using those cost savings to pay for defense.

不，他们能负担得起践行社会主义，是因为他们的人均医疗支出比我们少。说真的，他们应该用这些节省的费用来支付国防开销。
 
pm_me_bhole_pics_ty
Exactly because NATO aka US money protects them . Then they smear and laugh at the US.

没错，因为北约（又名美国）花钱保护了他们。他们却反过来抹黑和嘲笑美国。
 
IrishWebster
I’m no conservative, but I definitely don’t like NATO- almost entirely because the US is one of the only countries that pays their fair share, and supplies the vast majority of its budget. NATO would crumble without the States, and I loathe that.

我不是保守派，但我绝对不喜欢北约--几乎完全是因为美国是其中唯一支付了公平份额的国家之一，并提供了其预算的绝大部分。没有美国，北约就会崩溃，我讨厌的就是这点。
 
Fireandbud
NATO is not an “international community”. It is a military alliance lead by the USA. The USA decides whose in and out. It is a tool used by a hegemonic power (the USA) against its rivals (Russia and China).

北约不是一个"国际社会"。它是一个由美国领导的军事联盟。由美国决定谁的加入和退出。它是一个霸权国家（美国）用来对付其对手（俄罗斯和中国）的工具。
 
ttttt_rrrr
Its key to note that its a defensive military alliance

关键是要注意的一点是，它是一个防御性的军事联盟
 
Fireandbud
NATO took military action in Kuwait, Iraq, Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Somalia and Libya. Which of those were defensive wars? Seems to me like it’s mostly used for regime change.

北约在科威特、伊拉克、南斯拉夫、阿富汗、索马里和利比亚都采取了军事行动。其中哪些是防御性战争？在我看来，它大多用于制造政权更迭。
 
kofine05
The problem I see is so many countries do not share the same values as the "west" does. Freedom of speech, individual rights, women's rights, ect. A lot of middle eastern countries believe slavery is okay, women are property, and non believers in the Koran should be punished.
My understanding is several groups in the middle east desire to bring about the apocalypse so nuking other countries is preferable. Could you imagine if they had those kinds of weapons?

我发现的问题是，许多国家的价值观与“西方”重生言论自由、个人权利、妇女权利等等的价值观不同。许多中东国家认为奴隶制是可以接受的，妇女是一种财产，不信古兰经的人应该受到惩罚。
我的理解是，中东的几个团体希望带来世界末日，因此对其他国家进行核武器攻击是可取的。你能想象如果他们有这些武器吗？
 
N3wThrowawayWhoDis
You say it’s unsustainable, and I don’t like us being involved where we shouldn’t be as much as anyone, but having bases all over the world and constant demand for our military tech has seemed to be pretty profitable in the long run for the US

你说这是不可持续的，我和其他人一样不喜欢我们参与到我们不应该参与的地方，但是从长远来看，在世界各地拥有基地和对我们的军事技术的持续需求似乎是相当有利可图的。
 
SketchyLeaf666
I believe conservatives are superly hypocrites.

我认为保守派都是伪君子
 
sime77
The "international community" for 80 years has just been the us and its vassals

所谓80年来的"国际社会"只是美国和它的附庸。
 
rockman450
What does intervention mean?
I agree if intervention means we need to participate in the global economy and help to craft global rules for international commerce. This will help keep us from being taken advantage of by other global superpowers. We should intervene when in comes to NATO decisions, OPEC decisions, etc.
I disagree if intervention means we need to physically send soldiers to kill people.

所谓的“干预”到底是什么意思？
如果干预意味着我们需要参与全球经济并帮助制定国际商业的全球规则，那我同意。这将有助于使我们不被其他全球超级大国所利用。当涉及到北约的决定、欧佩克的决定等时，我们应该进行干预。
如果干预意味着我们需要亲自派兵去杀人，我不同意。
 
BestAdventures555
This principle failed badly in WW2, which is why I dislike absolutist/ideological statements like this. History shows us there is a time and place for forceful intervention. History also shows us that intervention is often a mistake. The real world and purist ideologies don't mix.

这一原则在第二次世界大战中完全失败，这就是为什么我不喜欢像这样的绝对主义/意识形态声明。历史告诉我们，武力干预是有特殊的时间和地点的。历史也告诉我们，干预往往是一个错误。现实世界和纯粹的意识形态是不相容的。
 
Fireandbud
What do you think NATO does? It’s a military alliance not a free trade agreement. And it’s lead by the USA, no need to intervene in NATO decisions when we are the ones making the decisions.
The USA is not a member of OPEC. How exactly would you intervene in their decisions? The USA has been trying for a long time, unsuccessfully.

你以为北约是干什么的？它是一个军事联盟，不是一个自由贸易协定组织。而且它是由美国领导的，当我们是那个做出决定的人时，没有所谓的“干预北约的决定”的说法。
美国不是欧佩克的成员。你要如何干预他们的决定？美国已经尝试了很久，但没有成功。
 
MuffMagician
Rational isolationism is the way to go.
Sick of wasting American lives and American tax dollars on endless wars that benefit the military-industrial-complex, a horrific entity that we were warned about over 70 years ago by conservative Eisenhower. Propaganda by liberals (South Park/Team America) stoked the flames of war along with neo-conservatives like Bush Jr & NBC/G.E. to enact such wars and empower the MIC.
Trump was the American public's greatest ally in his call to reject the MIC/Deep State's desire for bloodlust. Naturally he was crucified for being the most peaceful president in nearly 40 years.

理性的孤立主义才是正道。
我厌倦了在无休止的战争中浪费美国人的生命和美国人的税款，这些战争只有利于军事工业集团，这是一个可怕的实体，70多年前，保守派的艾森豪威尔就警告过我们这一点。自由主义者（南方公园/美国战队）的宣传与小布什和NBC/G.E.等新保守主义者一起煽动了战争的火焰，以策动这种战争并赋予了军工集团权力。
特朗普是美国公众最大的盟友，他呼吁拒绝军事委员会/影子政府的嗜血欲望。自然而然地，他因为成为近 40 年来最和平的总统而被钉死在十字架上。
 
PromKing
If i remember correctly, didnt Trump also increase the defense budget during his term? What did Trump actually do to decrease the MIC spending? Seems like he was rightfully crucified…

如果我没记错的话，特朗普在其任期内好像也增加了国防预算？特朗普究竟做了什么来减少军费开支？他被钉在十字架上似乎是正确的......
 
Buffaloaf25
I mean isolation doesn't mean we stop spending on military.

我说的孤立并不意味着我们就要停止军事开支。
 
PromKing
I agree that it doesn’t mean we stop spending on military, but isolationism will definitely cut down on military spending. If we move to a more isolationist policy, we wont need to spend money on upkeeping as many bases around the world. We wont need as many military bodies to keep those bases running, wont need as much new jets/naval ships/personnel transports/etc so naturally the budget for defense spending will go down.

我同意，这并不意味着我们停止军事开支，但孤立主义肯定会导致减少军事开支。如果我们转向更多的孤立主义政策，我们就不需要花钱在世界各地维持那么多基地。我们不需要那么多的军事机构来维持这些基地的运转，也不需要那么多的新式战斗机/军舰/人员运输机/等等，所以国防开支的预算自然会减少。
 
immibis
What if other people are killing your people?

如果别人要来干你怎么办？
 
rockman450
Defense is different from global intervention

自我防卫跟全球干预是两件事
 
TheCenterOfEnnui
I don't know that this is just a conservative argument.
I agree with the argument but I do wish US allies would ramp up their military spending so that the US wasn't seen as the police of the world.

我不知道这只是一个保守派的说法。
我同意这个说法，我确实希望美国的盟友能加大军费开支，这样美国就不会被视为世界警察了。
 
lucifer-ase
Considering how poorly that went for the US over the past 50 years, military intervention should be left to cases of actual national security (not vengence missions like Iraq / Afghanistan). Other than that the US would be well advised to build influence through economic and diplomatic ties. China is already becoming hugely un-popular in African nations due to their exploitative economic politics. Any attempt to expand their influence by military means wil end in disaster for them

考虑到美国在过去50年里的情况有多么糟糕，军事干预应该留给真正对于国家安全要紧的地方（而不是像伊拉克/阿富汗那样的报复性任务）。除此之外，美国最好是通过经济和外交关系来建立影响力。中国由于其OO的经济政治，在非洲国家已经变得非常不受欢迎。任何通过军事手段扩大其影响力的企图都会给他们带来灾难。
 
BryonBaines_224
Idk, I mean if by Conservatives you mean the few NeoCons that are hawkish and think we need to be the world’s daddy, then yeah they’re kinda ridiculous. But it seems like the Nationalist MAGA ideology has taken a firm root in American Right wing politics/GOP and they seem to give less shit about foreign policy as much as they do trying to do whatever the opposite of the woketivist left is trying to do.
Edit: to clarify, I also wouldn’t 100% identify as a Libertarian so much. If anything, I feel like some sort of displaced centrist / classical liberal because the MAGA movement and the resurgent fundamentalist nature of Conservatism in America completely turned me off to the GOP and the right, but the American left is so toxic I don’t even attempt to have any sort of political conversation with most leftists / liblefts.

我不知道，我的意思是，如果保守派指的是少数鹰派并认为我们需要成为世界之父的新保守主义者，那么是的，他们是有点可笑的。但似乎民族主义的 MAGA（让美国再次伟大） 意识形态已经在美国右翼政治/共和党中扎下了根，他们似乎对外交政策不那么在乎，就像他们只想试图去做任何与觉醒主义左翼相反的事情一样。
编辑：澄清一下，我也不会100% 认为自己是自由主义者。如果要细究的话，我觉得自己像是某种流离失所的中间派/古典自由主义者，因为 MAGA 运动和美国保守主义的原教旨主义性质让我对共和党和右翼产生了反感，但美国左派是如此有毒，我根本不想尝试与大多数左派/自由左派进行任何形式的政治对话。
 
jmkiii
The mistake was doing something to leave a gap in the first place. That being said, generally, you need to finish what you start. I would look for a responsible way to wind down intervention while being crystal clear to the rest of the world that if they enjoy stability it's going to be in their best interest to maintain that stability. The US needs to stop shouldering the lion's share of the burden.

错就错在一开始就做了留下真空的事情。那么解铃还需系铃人。我会寻找一种负责任的方式来逐步减少干预，同时让世界其他地方清楚地知道，如果他们享受稳定，那么维持这种稳定将符合他们的最大利益。美国需要停止承担最大的负担。
 
AsleepGarden219
If the US is going broke running a world empire, China can’t afford to either. Russia isn’t even close.
This line of thinking is extremely flawed. Our own efforts to stop Russia in Afghanistan led to 9/11 and the subsequent decades of war.
US intervention almost always makes situations worse

如果美国经营一个世界帝国并且要破产了，那么中国也负担不起。俄罗斯还差得远呢。
这种思路是极其有缺陷的。我们自己在阿富汗阻止俄罗斯的努力导致了911事件和随后几十年的战争。
美国的干预几乎总是使情况变得更糟
 
Tonycivic
Has there been a time since WW2/Korea that didn't make things worse? US foreign policy decisions from the Vietnam War to GWOT have basically ruined many regions in the world permanently.

自二战/朝鲜以来，有哪一次没有让事情变得更糟？美国的外交政策决定，从越南战争到反恐战争，基本上永久地毁了世界上许多地区。
 
thisispoopoopeepee
Gulf war 1 was good.
Stopping the coup in Haiti also good.
Stopping the Bosnian genocide as well.

第一次海湾战争干得挺好的。
阻止海地的政变也很好。
阻止波斯尼亚的种族灭绝也是如此。
 
Bheks
Ah but you see my shares in Boeing, Northrop Grumman and Raytheon saw a massive dividend increase. So all worth it in the end.
/s

啊哈，我看到了我在波音、诺斯罗普·格鲁曼和雷神公司的股票股息都大幅增加了。所以这都是值得的。（狗头）
 
JDepinet
Someone will strive to be the Supreme world power, it can be us, or it can be someone else. Or the much worse third option multiple regiems could compete for the role.
I dont like us being to world police, and frankly I'm not sure pur behavior is any better than anyone else's would be. But I do know having multiple nations competing for the role would be really really bad.

总有人会努力成为世界最高强国，它可能是我们，也可能是其他国家。或者更糟糕的第三种选择，多个政权可以争夺这个角色。
我不喜欢我们成为世界警察，坦率地说，我不确定我们的行为是否比其他任何人的行为都要好。但我知道，让多个国家竞争这个角色将是非常非常糟糕的。
 
MurmaidMan
We don't need to intervene, just need to be strong enough to intervene, and unpredictable enough to keep our enemies guessing.
We can spend all of history spending blood in shit hole pits in proxy wars, led by the hand to our doom by ccp and Russian whims, or we can look inward and find real strength.
The same people that brought you endless medical tyranny, also brought you endless intervention theory. It all serves the same master.

我们不需要干预，只需要强大到可以干预，并且不可预测到让我们的敌人猜不透。
我们可以把所有的血都流到代理战争的屎坑里，被中国和俄罗斯的奇思妙想牵着鼻子走，或者我们可以向内看，找到真正的力量。
给你们带来无尽的医疗暴政的人，也给你们带来了无尽的干预理论。这一切都是为了同一个主人。
 
CatOfGrey
Libertarian Voter 20+ years. Practical first.
What do you make of some conservatives' argument that intervention around the world is necessary because the gap we leave would be filled by regimes like China and Russia, which would inevitably harm us and other countries?
You've got the wrong cause, the wrong effect. American interventions are a big part of this problem. The usual example here is the Middle East, where decades of involvement has resulted in generations of people in developing nations where the US has been the 'oppression force' that has destablized the government, installed a totalitarian leader, who in turn oppressed the nation and ran things on corruption.

“一些保守派认为，在世界各地进行干预是必要的，因为我们留下的空缺会被中国和俄罗斯这样的政权填补，这将不可避免地伤害我们和其他国家，你怎么看？”
你弄错了原因，弄错了结论。美国的干预才是这一问题的重要原因。最常见的例子是中东，几十年的介入导致发展中国家的几代人都生活在美国破坏之后建立起来的极权主义的腐败的政府之下。
 
Warbeast78
Classical Liberal
I’m only for war when it actually affects us physically. Mean someone attacks us. I don’t mind what we are doing in Ukraine send them some supplies and weapons to do it themselves. They seem to be doing a pretty good job of it. I would also like to pull most of our bases out of other countries. Leave some strategic ones if the locals are ok with it.

我只支持那些实实在在影响到我们的战争。即有人物理上攻击我们。我不介意我们在乌克兰所做的事情，给他们一些物资和武器，让他们自己干自己该做的事。而且他们似乎在这方面做得很好。我也想把我们的大部分基地从其他国家撤出。如果当地人同意，可以留下一些战略性的基地。
 
Scansoriopterygidae
It’s basically a fact. US intervention doesn’t have to be actual military involvement, but if NATO does not help other countries and make ties with them, other powers will. If you want the US to be isolationist, that’s a valid policy position. But that policy position must come with the understanding that the rest of the world won’t just sing Kumbuyah and be isolationist too, they will exploit the absence of the US. The continent with the least US attention, Africa, is already seeing significant economic and military ties to China.
Another thing to note is survivorship bias in the public conscious about what an intervention is. The American public pretty much only ever remembers negative foreign policy outcomes, not positive ones. Vietnam and Afghanistan are memorable because they’re the two biggest failures in US history. The US has had dozens of moderately to highly successful interventions the average American has never heard of, because “intervention works as intended” is not a very exciting headline or history book chapter title. Panama, Nicaragua, Haiti, the Dominican Republic, the boxer rebellion, Veracruz, Grenada, and more were all either successful or at worst, not significantly damaging to the United States. I’m not arguing that these were moral or justified, just that it would be unfair to say they negatively impacted the United States really in any way.

这基本上是一个事实。美国的干预不一定是实际的军事介入，但如果北约不帮助其他国家，不与他们建立联系，其他大国就会。如果你想让美国成为孤立主义者，这确实是一个有效的政策立场。但这一政策立场必须伴随着这样的理解：世界其他国家不会只是唱着“Kumbuyah”和也实行孤立主义的人，他们会利用美国的缺席。美国关注最少的大陆，即非洲，已经与中国建立了重要的经济和军事联系。
另一件需要注意的事情是公众意识中关于什么是干预有一种幸存者偏差的偏见。美国公众几乎只记得负面的外交政策结果，而不是正面的结果。越南和阿富汗之所以令人难忘，是因为它们是美国历史上最大的两次失败。美国有几十个中度到高度成功的干预行动，普通美国人却从未听说过，因为"干预行动成功按计划进行"并不是一个非常激动人心的标题或历史书的章节标题。对巴拿马、尼加拉瓜、海地、多米尼加共和国、义和团、韦拉克鲁斯、格林纳达等等的干预都是成功的，或者在最坏的情况下，对美国没有造成重大损害。我不是在争论这些是不是道德的或正当的，只是说你说它们对美国产生了负面影响是不公平的。