史詩狂怒行動」 將成為唐納德·川普的一次史詩級失敗
這是一篇關於地緣政治評論的翻譯，語氣較為激進且帶有強烈的批判色彩。以下是中文翻譯：
翻譯內容
我不知道：美國史詩級的慘敗！
史詩級的慘敗：局勢反轉了！
這場原本計劃一週結束的戰爭已進入第 13 天，川普除了持續轟炸並將美軍移往全球最危險的地帶外，顯然束手無策。
你認為這場戰爭會如何結束？
史蒂夫·維特科夫（Steve Witkoff）表示：「我不知道！」
我們這些愛好和平的人民也不知道。然而，我們正目睹參議員克里斯·墨菲（Chris Murphy）所說的「史詩級慘敗」。他們根本沒有戰爭計劃。就算有，伊朗在作戰籌謀上也領先一步，並確信自己能與美國和以色列再戰 10 年。
賽義德·穆罕默德·馬蘭迪（Seyed Muhammad Marandi）教授表示：「伊朗將不再接受現狀。」
史考特·里特（Scott Ritter）則說：「這場戰爭何時結束由伊朗說了算，而不是唐納德·川普。」
世界不應寄望這場戰爭以停火或外交手段結束。去年那場為期 12 天的戰爭中，他們曾有過機會，但美國人並不認真，只是在意識到可能會輸時才要求停火。現在這場戰爭必須以產生明確的贏家來收場。去年其實已經分出勝負了。
所有的停火或外交方案只會為下一場戰爭帶來短暫的喘息。因此，不要再重啟（休戰）了，我們要看到明確的贏家。如果贏家是伊朗，那些收留美軍並允許其攻擊伊朗的「古蘭經王國」（Koran Kingdoms）必須被迫關閉境內所有美國基地，並驅逐所有士兵與情報人員。回顧國際法，以下是對這些身為美國附庸的「古蘭經王國」的提醒：
雖然許多東道國擁有雙邊協議（駐軍地位協定 - SOFA），使其能控制或限制外國基地的使用，但若未能阻止這些基地被濫用，可能會對東道國造成嚴重的法律與安全後果：
- 主權侵犯與侵略行為： 根據國際法，允許領土內的外國軍事基地被用於攻擊另一個國家，構成了對國家主權的侵犯以及對禁止使用武力原則的違反，這使東道國可能需為侵略行為負責。此類行動會使中立的東道國轉變為「共同參戰國」，失去法律保護，並使其領土成為合法的自衛攻擊目標。
- 國家責任（ARSIWA）： 根據《國家對國際不法行為責任條款草案》（ARSIWA）第 16 條，若一國在知情的情況下援助或協助另一國進行不法行為（例如允許利用其領土進行武力攻擊），該國須承擔國際責任。
- 自衛權（聯合國憲章第 51 條）： 受害國擁有「固有的個人或集體自衛權」。根據「火力來源」原則，若飛彈、無人機或飛機源自第三國的基地，該基地即成為被攻擊國家的合法軍事目標，因為受害國無需尊重那些被用作掩護持續行動的領土邊界。
- 失去中立性/共同參戰： 當東道國促成進攻行動時，可能失去中立地位，成為衝突的共同參戰者與參與者。
- 比例性與必要性： 第三國對東道國基地的任何反擊必須符合必要性原則（以停止進行中的攻擊）及比例性原則（僅限於中和威脅所需的程度）。
補充資訊與觀察
這段文字反映了極其強硬的反美觀點，並引用了多位評論員的說法：
- 關鍵觀點： 文章主張不應採取外交斡旋，而應透過軍事決定勝負。
- 法律警告： 文中特別針對中東國家（被稱為「古蘭經王國」）提出法律警告，強調若允許美軍從其領土發動攻擊，將面臨被伊朗合法報復的風險。
需要我為您分析文中提到的國際法條款（如 ARSIWA 或聯合國憲章第 51 條）的具體含義嗎？
18:23
70
< Congo Glo...
關注中
Q
I don't know: US Epic Debacle!
Epic Debacle: the tables have turned!
In its thirteenth day, a war that was planned for one week, Trump doesn't know what to do if not just keep bombing and moving the U.S. soldiers to the most dangerous zone in the world.
How do you see this ending, this war?
Steve Witkoff: 'I don't know!
We don't either, we the peaceful world. However, we are witnessing what Senator Chris Murphy called a debacle of epic proportion. They didn't have a war plan. And, even if they did, Iran was ahead of them in terms of war planning and is sure it can fight against the U.S and Israël for 10 more years.
"Iran will not accept the status quo anymore," Professor Seyed Muhammad Marandi says.
"This war will finish when Iran says is done, not Donald Trump," Scott Ritter.
What should the world wish is that this war not to end with a ceasefire or diplomatic solution. They had one last year during the 12 - Day war. But the Yankees were not serious. They asked for it when they realised they could lose. This war now must end with this war with a clear winner. There was a winner last year.
All ceasefire or diplomatic solution will do is bringing the truce for a war that will be restarting. So, no more reboot. We want to see a clear winner. If this winner would be Iran, the closure of all US bases in the region and the removal of all their soldiers and intelligence personnel must be imposed on the Koran Kingdoms which have been housing them and allowing them to attack Iran. Reviewing the international law, Here the reminders for the Koran Kingdoms, vassals of the United States:
While many host countries have bilateral agreements (Status of Forces Agreements - SOFAs) that allow them to control or restrict the use of foreign bases, failure to prevent their misuse can result in severe legal and security consequences for the host:
1. Under international law, allowing foreign military bases on your territory to be used for attacking another country constitutes a violation of state sovereignty and the prohibition on the use of force, making the host state potentially responsible for acts of aggression. Such action can transform a neutral host state into a co-belligerent, losing its legal protections and making its territory a legitimate target for self-defense.
2. State Responsibility (ARSIWA): Under Article 16 of the Draft Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts (ARSIWA), a state that aids or assists another state in an unlawful act-such
as allowing the use of its territory for armed attack-is internationally responsible if it does so with knowledge of the circumstances.
3. Right to Self-Defense (UN Charter Art. 51): The victim state has the "inherent right
of individual or collective self-defense". Under the "source of fire" principle, if a missile, drone, or aircraft originates from a base in a third country, that base becomes a legitimate
military target for the state under attack, as they are not required to respect the territorial boundaries being used to shield ongoing operations.
Loss of Neutrality/Co-belligerency: When a host state enables offensive operations, it may lose its neutrality, becoming a co-belligerent and participant in the conflict.
Proportionality and Necessity: Any response by the third country against the host base must comply with the principles of necessity (to halt an ongoing attack) and proportionality (limited to what is required to neutralize them
Conquest Of Paradise (...
3天前,查看翻譯
73 則評論
新增評論
1,284 73 179 155.
留言
張貼留言