【トルコ/米国】トルコ大統領が米批判「恥を知れ、恥を知れ。牧師とNATO同盟国を引き換えにしている」「リラ急落に慌てないように」

[過去ﾛｸﾞ] 【トルコ/米国】トルコ大統領が米批判「恥を知れ、恥を知れ。牧師とNATO同盟国を引き換えにしている」「リラ急落に慌てないように」 (1002ﾚｽ)
上下前次 1-新
通常表示 512ﾊﾞｲﾄ分割ﾚｽ栞

このｽﾚｯﾄﾞは過去ﾛｸﾞ倉庫に格納されています｡
次ｽﾚ検索歴削→次ｽﾚ栞削→次ｽﾚ過去ﾛｸﾞﾒﾆｭｰ

925: 名無しさん＠１周年 [] 2018/08/12(日) 13:07:43.38 ID:T2A9MVcy0

The United States, a nation founded on opposition to a standing army, (Part 1 of 3)
Not until the Second World War did the United States establish what would become a standing army.
“Why are we still in Afghanistan?”
You are violating American-Constitution.

[NewYorker]January 28, 2013 Issue
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2013/01/28/the-force
The Force
How much military is enough?
The United States spends more on defense than all the other nations of the world combined.
Between 1998 and 2011, military spending doubled, reaching more than seven hundred billion dollars a year?more, in adjusted dollars, than at any time since the Allies were fighting the Axis.
The 2011 Budget Control Act, which raised the debt ceiling and created both the fiscal cliff and a Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction, which was supposed to find a way to steer clear of it,
required four hundred and eighty-seven billion dollars in cuts to military spending, spread over the next ten years.
The cliff-fall mandates an additional defense-budget reduction of fifty-five billion dollars annually.
None of these cuts have gone into effect. McKeon has been maneuvering to hold the line.

The long history of military spending in the United States begins with the establishment of the War Department, in 1789.
At first, the Secretary of War, a Cabinet member who, from the start, was a civilian, was called the Secretary at War,
a holdover from the Revolution but also a prepositional manifestation of an ideological commitment: the department was chiefly to be called upon only if the nation was at war.
Early Americans considered a standing army-a permanent army kept even in times of peace-to be a form of tyranny.
“What a deformed monster is a standing army in a free nation,” Josiah Quincy, of Boston, wrote in 1774.
Instead, they favored militias.
About the first thing Henry Knox did when he became George Washington’s War Secretary was to draft a plan for establishing a uniform militia.

Beginning in 1822, congressional oversight was handled by two standing committees: one for the Army, the other for the Navy.
A committee on the militia, established in 1815, was abolished in 1911-the militia itself having been essentially abandoned.
Six years later, the United States entered the First World War, and the staggering devastation of that war raised both new and old fears about the business of arming men.

In 1934, the publication of “Merchants of Death,” a best-seller and a Book-of-the-Month-Club selection, contributed to the formation, that year,
of the Senate Munitions Committee, headed by Gerald P. Nye, a North Dakota Republican.
Not coincidentally, that was also the year Congress passed the National Firearms Act, which, among other things, strictly regulated the private ownership of machine guns.
(Keeping military weapons out of the hands of civilians seemed to the Supreme Court, when it upheld the Firearms Act, in 1939, entirely consistent with the Second Amendment, which provides for the arming of militias.)
For two years, Nye led the most rigorous inquiry into the arms industry that any branch of the federal government has ever conducted.
He convened ninety-three hearings.
He thought the ability to manufacture weapons should be restricted to the government.
“The removal of the element of profit from war would materially remove the danger of more war,” he said.
That never came to pass, partly because Nye was unable to distinguish his opposition to arms profiteering from his advocacy of isolationism, a position that had become indefensible.

http://asahi.5ch.net/test/read.cgi/newsplus/1534026250/925

上下前次 1-新書関写板覧索設栞歴

あと 71 ﾚｽあります
ｽﾚ情報赤ﾚｽ抽出画像ﾚｽ抽出歴の未読ｽﾚ AAｻﾑﾈｲﾙ

ぬこの手ぬこTOP 0.010s