hawks

简明释义

英[hɔːks]美[hɔːks]

n. 亚特兰大老鹰队（NBA 球队名）；霍克斯（人名）

英英释义

单词用法

同义词

反义词

例句

1.One of those hawks dove not more than a foot above my head to pick up a mouse beneath a tree across from me.

其中有只鹰俯冲下来离我头顶不到一英尺，在我对面的一棵树下捕到一只老鼠。

2.But those fixes would upset both fiscal conservatives and environmental hawks.

但是这些措施将会激怒财政保守人士和环境鹰派人士。

3.A clear split over tactics appears to be emerging between doves and hawks in the party.

一个明显的战术上的分歧似乎正出现在党内主和派和主战派之间。

4.The Black Hawks departed from Jalalabad thirty minutes later.

黑鹰在30分钟后从Jalalabad启程。

5.Both hawks and doves have expanded their conditions for ending the war.

鹰派和鸽派都已详述了他们结束战争的条件。

6.It seemed like an awful thing to do when they're bringing these falcons and hawks who were imported to intercept these people.

当他们带着猎鹰和鹰来拦截这些人时，这似乎是一件可怕的事情。

7.For American hawks this is a marriage made in hell.

在美国鹰派看来，这简直是一桩地狱之姻。

8.Howard Hawks hit paydirt with "Rio Bravo."

霍华德·霍克斯凭借影片《赤胆屠龙》一夜成名。

9.They're as hungry as young hawks an' foxes.

他们就像雏鹰和小狐狸一样饿。

10.The hawks hunt in pairs to increase their chances of catching small mammals.

这些鹰成对狩猎，以提高捕捉小型哺乳动物的机会。

11.The hawks are circling high above the field, searching for prey.

这些鹰在田野上空盘旋，寻找猎物。

12.His hawk-like gaze made everyone feel uneasy during the presentation.

他那如同鹰一样的目光让每个人在演示时感到不安。

13.The wildlife documentary featured various birds, including hawks and eagles.

这部野生动物纪录片展示了各种鸟类，包括鹰和老鹰。

14.In the meeting, some members acted like hawks, pushing for aggressive policies.

在会议中，一些成员表现得像鹰派，推动激进的政策。

作文

In the world of politics and international relations, the term hawks often refers to individuals or groups that advocate for a strong, aggressive approach to foreign policy. These hawks typically support military intervention and the use of force as a means of achieving national goals. They believe that a robust military presence can deter potential threats and ensure national security. The perspective of hawks contrasts sharply with that of doves, who favor diplomacy and peaceful resolutions over military action.Historically, the influence of hawks can be seen during various conflicts, such as the Vietnam War and the Gulf War. During these times, hawks played a crucial role in shaping public opinion and government policy, often pushing for increased military spending and intervention. For instance, in the lead-up to the Iraq War in 2003, many prominent hawks in the U.S. government argued that military action was necessary to eliminate weapons of mass destruction and to promote democracy in the region. This aggressive stance was met with significant opposition from doves, leading to a heated national debate about the merits of war versus peace.The motivations behind the actions of hawks can vary. Some may genuinely believe that military intervention is the best way to protect their country and its interests. Others may be influenced by economic factors, such as the defense industry, which benefits from increased military spending. Additionally, hawks may also be driven by a sense of moral obligation, feeling that it is their duty to intervene in situations where human rights are being violated or where there is a risk of genocide.However, the approach taken by hawks is not without its critics. Many argue that military intervention often leads to unintended consequences, such as destabilization, loss of civilian life, and long-term resentment against the intervening nation. The aftermath of the Iraq War serves as a poignant example of this; despite the initial success in toppling Saddam Hussein, the subsequent chaos and rise of extremist groups highlighted the dangers of a hawkish approach.In contemporary politics, the debate between hawks and doves continues to shape discussions on issues like terrorism, climate change, and humanitarian crises. For example, some hawks advocate for military action against terrorist organizations, believing that only through force can the threat be neutralized. On the other hand, doves often argue for addressing the root causes of terrorism through diplomacy, development aid, and international cooperation.Ultimately, understanding the role of hawks in political discourse is vital for engaging in informed discussions about foreign policy. Recognizing the implications of their stance can help citizens critically evaluate the decisions made by their leaders and the potential consequences of those choices. Whether one aligns more closely with the hawkish or dovish perspective, it is essential to consider the broader context and the complex interplay of factors that influence international relations. As global challenges continue to evolve, the dialogue between hawks and doves will remain a fundamental aspect of how nations navigate the turbulent waters of diplomacy and conflict resolution.

在政治和国际关系的世界中，术语hawks通常指的是那些倡导强硬、积极的外交政策的人或团体。这些hawks通常支持军事干预和使用武力来实现国家目标。他们相信，强大的军事存在可以威慑潜在威胁并确保国家安全。hawks的观点与鸽派形成鲜明对比，后者更倾向于通过外交手段和和平解决方案，而非军事行动。历史上，hawks的影响力在各种冲突中都可以看到，例如越南战争和海湾战争。在这些时期，hawks在塑造公众舆论和政府政策方面发挥了关键作用，常常推动增加军事开支和干预。例如，在2003年伊拉克战争前夕，许多美国政府中的突出hawks辩称，进行军事行动是消除大规模杀伤性武器和促进该地区民主所必需的。这种强硬立场遭到了鸽派的强烈反对，导致关于战争与和平的国家辩论异常激烈。hawks行为背后的动机可能各不相同。有些人可能真心相信军事干预是保护国家及其利益的最佳方式。其他人可能受到经济因素的影响，比如国防工业，它从增加的军事开支中获益。此外，hawks也可能出于道德义务感，觉得干预是他们的责任，尤其是在侵犯人权或有种族灭绝风险的情况下。然而，hawks采取的方式并非没有批评者。许多人认为，军事干预往往会导致意想不到的后果，如不稳定、平民生命损失以及对干预国的长期怨恨。伊拉克战争的后果就是一个深刻的例子；尽管最初成功推翻了萨达姆·侯赛因，但随后的混乱和极端主义组织的崛起突显了强硬立场的危险。在当代政治中，hawks与鸽派之间的争论继续塑造着有关恐怖主义、气候变化和人道危机等问题的讨论。例如，一些hawks主张对恐怖组织采取军事行动，认为只有通过武力才能消除威胁。另一方面，鸽派通常主张通过外交、发展援助和国际合作来解决恐怖主义的根本原因。最终，理解hawks在政治话语中的角色对于参与有关外交政策的知情讨论至关重要。认识到他们立场的影响可以帮助公民批判性地评估领导者所做的决定及其潜在后果。无论一个人与强硬派还是鸽派的观点更为接近，考虑更广泛的背景以及影响国际关系的复杂因素都是至关重要的。随着全球挑战的不断演变，hawks与鸽派之间的对话将继续成为各国如何应对外交和冲突解决动荡局势的基本方面。