题目内容
（请给出正确答案）
[主观题]
英译汉：“Iran；United Kingdom”，正确的翻译为：（)。 A．伊朗；英国 B．伊拉克；美国 C．伊朗；美国 D．伊
英译汉：“Iran；United Kingdom”，正确的翻译为：()。
A．伊朗；英国
B．伊拉克；美国
C．伊朗；美国
D．伊拉克；英国
查看答案
如果结果不匹配，请 联系老师 获取答案
题目内容
（请给出正确答案）
如果结果不匹配，请 联系老师 获取答案
题目内容
（请给出正确答案）
英译汉：“Iran；United Kingdom”，正确的翻译为：()。
A．伊朗；英国
B．伊拉克；美国
C．伊朗；美国
D．伊拉克；英国
如果结果不匹配，请 联系老师 获取答案
更多“英译汉：“Iran；United Kingdom”，正确的翻…”相关的问题
Watch Consequences Of US-Libyan Relations
US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice announced on Monday that the United Stated decided to restore full diplomatic ties with Libya and clear the nation from the list of terrorism-supporting countries. The Libyan Government welcomed the decision.
This means that the 25-year-old US-Libyan confrontation comes to an end.
Interpretation of this varies, the sudden announcement of the rapprochement is closely related to the issue of Iran's nuclear bidding.
Over a long period of time, Washington called Libya, together with Iran and others, a "rogue nation", which allegedly supported terrorism, and was one of the seven countries that could be subject to possible US nuclear strikes.
The situation altered somewhat since the outbreak of the Iraqi War in 2003. The military forces of the United States and its allies toppled the Saddam Hussein regime with the excuse that Iraq went in for weapons of mass destruction(WMD) programmes. They did so in hopes of making the regime a public example that would pressure others to give up their alleged WMD bidding.
Iran took no heed of this and went on doing what it deemed should be done. Libya, however, was cooperative, abandoning its so-called WMD programmes.
For the co-operative attitude on the part of Libya, the United States gave some limited encouragement, restoring diplomatic representatives to the country in 2004. But restoration of full diplomatic relations did not occur because Libya, in the eyes of the United States, remained a "totalitarian" country, running counter to Washington's push for US-style. freedom and democracy, even though Libya's co-operation in WMD issues was in the United States' strategic interest.
The deadlock over Iran's nuclear bidding cornered the United States to a dilemma(进退两难的窘境): Military strikes are difficult to carry out right now and diplomatic means are yielding no significant results.
It is in this context that US-Libyan ties were put on the agenda. The United States wanted to convey this message: US-Iranian ties could be restored if Iran follows Libya's example, despite the fact that the United States dislikes the Iranian regime.
The message is naturally not only for the ear of Iran and the Democratic People's Republic of Korea but also for other "rogue countries"—Middle-East nations that are in the throes of transformation and some Latin American countries.
The United States, for instance, decided to impose arms embargo on Venezuela almost simultaneously while it announced rapprochement with Libya. The contrast between the punishment and reward helps bring home to other countries the intention that "those who obey survive, those do not perish" in the US international strategy.
To what extent this kind of "punishment and rewarding" strategy would impact the Iran and DPRK's nuclear bidding and those "disobedient" countries, such as Sudan and Venezuela, is worth keeping an eye on.
Oil constitutes another important factor behind the rapprochement. As the second-largest oil producing country in Africa and an important nation located in the North, Libya enjoys unique geopolitical and economic value.
Currently, the oil -rich Middle East is in chaos and the last thing the Bush administration wants is for the United States to become an "oil hostage" to the Middle East, where the US Government is strenuously pushing for democratic transformation.
The situation is compounded by the fact that some Latin American countries are increasingly tilting to the left, threatening to become an unstable energy-resources backyard for the United States.
In view of all this, opening up new energy resources-supplying bases becomes a strategic imperative for the United States.
More importantly,
A．Y
B．N
C．NG
US needs to wake up to fast changing Asia
A succession of events taking place in Asia seems to indicate that the United States' Asia policy is failing to keep up with the developments in the regional political arena.
US-DPRK(Democratic People's Republic of Korea) relations have become a factor that affects the stability in Asia, with the talks on DPRK's nuclear programme issue travelling along a bumpy road. Revolving around the nuclear issue, disputes between the United States and the Republic of Korea crop up frequently, estranging the two allies.
Sins-US relations are getting increasingly complex and different schools of thought inside the United States clash with each other over how to deal with a fast "rising China". The China policy, to a certain extent, has evolved into a bottleneck for the United States' Asia policy. The Taiwan question becomes ever pressing in the post-Cold-War period, but the United States has so far failed to come up with an effective way to address the situation.
In Southeast Asia and South Asia, the US anti-terror campaigns have achieved little, and instead served to distance the United States from the Muslim masses in the region. Thousands upon thousands of US troops are stuck in the quagmire of Iraq. There seems no light at the end of the tunnel on the issue of Iran's nuclear undertakings.
In the face of all this, US Asia experts have voiced their dissatisfaction over US Asia policy. They generally come to the conclusion that the US Asia policy lags behind the developments and that the definition of the US role in Asia is disorientated. The conclusion is drawn against the background of Asia's fast changing political, economic and security situations.
Strong bias has always blurred the US analysis of international politics, often leading to misjudgement and miscalculation.
Confrontation, for example, dominated Sino-US relations for 22 years after 1949, when the People's Republic of China was founded. This is because US policy-makers understood the event as an outcome of the Soviet Union's exporting of revolution, thinking China would go along steadily with the "Big Brother" concept for decades to come. The United States paid dearly for the confrontation.
The US involvement in Viet Nam offers another example.
Ho Chih Minh's drive for national unification was misread as the expansion of communism in Southeast Asia. Large numbers of American troops were committed to "contain" the "expansion." Again, the United States paid dearly.
The United States, it seems to me, is now misreading China's fast development.
China's high-speed economic growth is bringing wealth and prosperity to one-fifth of the world's population.
But some American political elite think the rise of China poses a threat and challenge to the US supremacy. They are haunted by how to come up with the best way to deal with China's rise, and hence the hesitation between engagement and containment. This, in turn, helps explain the volatility of US-China relations.
Apart from its misjudgement of the outside world, the wrong definition of its role in Asia is also responsible for policy errors.
Desire for hegemony has dominated US Asia policy since World War II. Seeking supremacy is at the core of policy-making considerations.
During the Cold War period, Washington claimed "containment of communism," but they were actually in pursuit of US hegemony.
Driven by these hegemonic impulses, the United States got involved first in the Korean War and then the Viet Nam War, taking upon itself commitments that far outstripped its strength.
After the failure of Viet Nam, the United States had to reshape its Asia policy, seeking strategic balance instead of supremacy.
The change of role he
A．Y
B．N
C．NG
Energy crisis
The year 1973 brought an end to the era of secure, cheap oil. In October, as a result of the Arab Israeli War, the Arab oil-producing countries cut back oil production and embargoed (禁运) oil shipments to the United States and the Netherlands. Although the Arab cutbacks represented a loss of less than 7 percent in world supply, they created panic on the part of oil companies, consumers, oil traders, and some governments. Wild bidding (出价) for crude oil ensued when a few producing nations began to auction (拍卖) off some of their oil. This bidding encouraged the OPEC nations, which now numbered 13, to raise the price of all their crude oil to a level as high as eight times that of a few years earlier. The world oil scene gradually calmed, as a worldwide recession brought on in part by the higher oil prices cut the demand for oil. In the meantime, most OPEC governments took over ownership of the oil fields in their countries.
In 1978 a second oil crisis began when, as a result of the revolution that eventually drove the Shah of Iran from his throne, Iranian oil production and exports dropped drastically. Because Iran had been a major exporter, consumers again panicked. A replay of 1973 events, complete with wild bidding, again forced up oil prices during 1979. The outbreak of wax between Iran and Iraq in 1980 gave a further boost to oil prices. By the end of 1980 the price of crude oil stood at 19 times what it had been just ten years earlier.
The very high oil prices again contributed to a worldwide recession and gave energy conservation a big push. As oil demand reduced and suppliers increased, the world oil market went down. Significant increases in non-OPEC oil supplies, such as those in the North Sea, Mexico, Brazil, Egypt, China, and India, pushed oil prices even lower. Production in the Soviet Union reached 11.42 million barrels per day by 1989, accounting for 19.2 percent of world production in that year.
Despite the low world oil prices that have prevailed since 1986, concern over disruption (分裂，瓦解) has continued to be a major focus of energy policy in the industrialized countries. The short-term increases in prices following Iraq's invasion of Kuwait in 1990 reinforced this concern. Owing to its vast reserves, the Middle East will continue to be the major source of oil for the foreseeable future. However, new discoveries in the Caspian Sea region suggest that countries such as Kazakhstan may become major sources of petroleum in the 21st century.
Current state
In the 1990s, oil production by non-OPEC countries remained strong and production by OPEC countries rebounded (回弹). The result at the end of the 20th century was a world oil surplus and prices (when adjusted for inflation) that were. lower than in 1972.
Experts are uncertain about future oil supplies and prices. Low prices have spurred greater oil consumption, and experts question how long world petroleum reserves can keep pace with increased demand. Many of the world's leading petroleum geologists believe the world oil supply will peak around 80 million barrels per day between 2010 and 2020. (In 1998 world consumption was approximately 70 million barrels per day.) On the other hand, many economists believe that even modestly higher oil prices might lead to greater supply, since the oil companies would then have the economic incentive to exploit less accessible oil deposits.
Natural gas may be increasingly used in place of oil for applications such as power generation and transportation. One reason is that world reserves of natural gas have doubled since 1976, in part because of the discovery of major deposits of natural gas in Russia and in the Middle East. New facilities and pipelines are being constructed to help process and transport this natural gas from production wells to consumers.
In addition to developing alter
A．Y
B．N
C．NG
Unlike in China , the kin terms used for relatives do not distinguish between ()relatives in Britain.
A. internal and external
B. old and young
C. maternal and paternal
D. male and female
A.Paternal and maternal
B.male and female
C.old and young
D.internal and external
