您现在的位置是:主页 > 正规赌钱app下载 > 金灿荣美定点暗杀伊朗将军实际上是无能的表现伊朗伊拉克

2020-01-08 00:15   来源:  www.campusaux.com   评论:0 点击:



On January 3,2020, in a planned U.S. missile attack near Baghdad International Airport in Iraq, Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps \"Al-Quds Brigade\" leader Suleimani and Iraqi People's Mobilization Group leader Mohammadis died. On the same day, CCTV News interviewed Professor Jin Canrong, a famous expert on international issues.


Reporter: What do you think about the news that Suleimanni was beheaded by the US military? How will it affect the situation in the Middle East, US-Iran relations, and the global situation?


Kim canrong: today, the u.s. droned \"hellfire\" missiles, assassinated the leader of the iranian al-qaeda brigade in iraq's baghdad airport, general suleimani, and iraq's shia leader, the leader of the shia militia, also known as the \"people's mobilization \", is a major event this year. The bloody events of the third decade of the 21st century, in 2020, are not a good omen.


The normal logic is that both iran's al-qaeda brigade and iraq's shia militias will retaliate, and the contradictions will be a little inflamed, which should be very detrimental to regional stability.


The Al-Quds Brigade is known to be an important force in the Iranian Revolutionary Guard and has been very active in recent years. America's best approach, then, is to negotiate. If it does not negotiate, the United States will have to rein it in or destroy it. Just knocking off his representative figure only inflames the contradiction and doesn't solve the problem, because after Suleimani left, there must be a later leader. Sixty percent of Iraq's population is Shia, most of it pro-Iranian. The assassination of Iraq's Shi'ite military leaders is intolerable to them.


America's contradictions with Iran. In particular, conflicts with Iranian radicals will rise, and conflicts between the United States and Iraq's Shiite militias will intensify. It's common sense, but it's hard to predict what will happen in the future. Things are hard to predict in this part of the Middle East, and what can be seen is the rise of contradictions.


Another point to comment on is that Americans are more domineering in their approach to the issue. We in China, including some countries in the East, are willing to talk about conflicts and solve problems through some kind of exchange of interests and concessions. This is more advantageous for problem solving. But America's way is to crush people with power. It is not a good way to solve the problem.


This kind of assassination should be very bad and may provoke anger, preferably negotiation. It's okay to overwhelm each other militarily, because it's just a targeted assassination. This is not what a superpower should do. A country like Israel seems more normal to do so, because it is small, surrounded by many enemies, and can be fought by this means. But America is a superpower, not a leader. This can be compared to Chiang Kai-shek and Chairman Mao in the war of liberation. Chairman mao engaged in ideological movement and ideological education. Jiang Jieshi directly with a bullet to Wen Yiduo, Li Gongpu assassinated, its political consequences are too big. This is not the way a big politician should be.


America's approach to problem-solving is far from right, much more so. If you strike each other physically in the form of an assassination, they will follow suit. So, intuitively and logically, this will certainly inflame the tensions between the important forces of the United States, Iraq, and Iran, so the Middle East will be in disarray for some time, and today we see a reaction in the international oil market.


Oil prices and gold prices are starting to rise, which is not very good for us. Because we all know that China is the largest importer of oil, the cost of driving is a little higher, and the import cost of many enterprise resources will increase. Although we are not directly related, we still have an indirect impact. Chinese companies are prepared for higher oil prices and regional unrest.


Reporter: some netizens said bin laden has given us a 10 years of peaceful development of the favorable opportunity, the arab world has given us another 10 years, this time the united states and iran, can we create another 10 years of peaceful development period for china? Will it be better for China from this point of view?


China is a big country. All our strategies should start from ourselves and do our own thing. Physical fitness, full of internal work, so that we can cope with all difficulties. So I believe that our Chinese leaders look at the problem from this point of view. The key is to do your job well, not to expect external opportunities.


Because it's natural that we'll catch it out there if we have a chance. As a strategic planner and policy-maker, we must first base ourselves on the domestic. It is the premise that all problems can be solved by doing well in everything we do, doing well in the economy, strengthening the capacity building of the modern state and strengthening the capacity building for governance and rallying the domestic people. We shouldn't rely too much on the ungovernable opportunities of the outside world when we plan our strategy. But if there's an opportunity out there, it's definitely going to catch it, but what they do is for the diplomatic community to think about it. I think the general principles of our government still hope that the contradiction is also controllable.


Then I think it should be condemned for the use of military force and the use of drones to assassinate military leaders of other political figures. This is incompatible with public international law. If we all follow the example, it is bound to enter the warring States period, the world chaos. All chaos is spared.


I think our Government can condemn this, but it is not necessarily too positive. To condemn the act itself, and then to express a position that \"wants to negotiate a solution to the problem, there are contradictions to sit down and talk about \". The long-term strategy then focuses on strengthening internal performance. At the international level, it is also necessary to maintain a basic posture, that is, to talk and promote peace, and to condemn some sort of act that undermines peace and inflames contradictions.


At least morally. And I've just repeated that it's not an image of a superpower to rely on assassination to restrict its opponents. Small countries are not doing the right thing, but understandably. It's a sign of incompetence for big powers to do so. I don't think it's decent if you're too big for that. So the United States claims to be a high-tech, long-range drone rocket hit, essentially an assassination attempt. It's the same as an assassin's sniper gun that killed you. Although the factors are somewhat modern, the essence is the same. In violation of international law, as a matter of identity, the United States as a superpower, this matter has done very unseemly.