日本およびドイツを徹底的に糾弾しろ!、 日本およびドイツは、第2次大戦について巨額の賠償をしろ! 0313名無しさん@1周年2018/07/12(木) 22:33:49.94ID:Y3Q3z12x0>>306 ロシアがクリミア取った時も国連は何の役にも立たなかったじゃんか もう国連に期待したって無理だって・・・ 0314名無しさん@1周年2018/07/12(木) 22:34:05.39ID:5Pbn9Tj+0 Allahu Akbar! The U.S. must take Monroe Doctrine now. The U.S. must withdraw American Forces from all Foreign Countries now. Stop America's doing its all wars now!
I love American99% and the U.S.
China, Germany and Japan must loosen Germany's, Japan's and China's monetary policies now! China, Germany and Japan must stimulate Germany's, Japan's and China's domestic demands now! Japan and Germany must issue a lot of construction bond now! Japan and Germany must reduce Germany's, Japan's and China's taxes now! The U.S. must tighten its monetary policy now! As a result, Dollar value will rise! The U.S. will have trade surplus!
Japan and Germany are evil empires. Islamists' true enemies are Japan, Germany, FRB, Top1%, Wall Street, American Military Industry and DOD! Japan is the country which has been promoting Globalization!!! Allahu Akbar!
American Revolutionary War! We American 99% have the 2nd amendment! American Revolutionary War!
Japan's Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (METI) and Japanese-bureaucrats are the main largest promoters of FTA. Wall-Street, American-top1%, American-Military-Industry are colluding with Japan and Japan's Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (METI). 0315名無しさん@1周年2018/07/12(木) 22:37:12.53ID:Y3Q3z12x0 アメリカと言うかトランプが今やってる事は同盟関係を壊すわけではなく 同盟国にもそれ相応の負担をちゃんとやれと言ってるだけでしょ?
[Wikipedia] Double-headed eagle http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-headed_eagle The double-headed eagle is a common symbol in heraldry and vexillology. It is most commonly associated with the Byzantine Empire, the Holy Roman Empire, the Austrian Empire, the Russian Empire and their successor states. In Byzantine heraldry, the heads represent the Emperor having authority over both secular and religious matters, Byzantine emperors were regarded as Christ's viceregent on Earth. It also signified the dominance of the Byzantine Emperors over both East and West. In the Holy Roman Empire's heraldry, it represented the church and the state. Several Eastern European nations adopted it from the Byzantines and continue to use it as their national symbol to this day. 0330名無しさん@1周年2018/07/12(木) 22:47:31.27ID:pGEqTaJC0 これなんで金払わないの? 0331名無しさん@1周年2018/07/12(木) 22:47:46.80ID:5Pbn9Tj+0 [Wikipedia] Coat of arms of Russia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coat_of_arms_of_Russia
Historical versions Evolution The use of the double-headed eagle as a Russian coat of arms goes back to the 15th century. With the fall of Constantinople and the end of the Byzantine Empire in 1453, the Grand Dukes of Muscovy came to see themselves as the successors of the Byzantine heritage, a notion reinforced by the marriage of Ivan III to Sophia Paleologue (hence the expression "Third Rome" for Moscow and, by extension, for the whole of Imperial Russia). Ivan adopted the golden Byzantine double-headed eagle in his seal, first documented in 1472, marking his direct claim to the Roman imperial heritage and posing as a sovereign equal and rival to the Holy Roman Empire.
Description and usage The modern arms of Russia were instated by a presidential decree in 1993, and then by a federal law signed by President Vladimir Putin on December 20, 2000. 0332名無しさん@1周年2018/07/12(木) 22:48:52.04ID:5Pbn9Tj+0 オマエラニホンは、日本に都合がよくないから、第2次大戦後の冷戦期ばかりに着目した説明を行う。だから教育がおかしいんだ。 オマエラ日本の日本史も、連合軍最高司令部GHQの命令で第2次大戦後だけにしとくべきだったなwww
[Wikipedia] Sophia Palaiologina http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sophia_Palaiologina Zoe Palaiologina, who later changed her name to Sophia Palaiologina, Grand Duchess of Moscow, was a niece of the last Byzantine emperor Constantine XI and second wife of Ivan III of Russia. She was also the grandmother of Ivan the Terrible. 0333名無しさん@1周年2018/07/12(木) 22:48:54.21ID:Ex7XxTgF0 クロアチアがW杯決勝まで行ったけど、クロアチアも旧ユーゴのゴタゴタして 分裂した国家だっけ。あの辺りはよくわからんな。 0334名無しさん@1周年2018/07/12(木) 22:49:56.36ID:5Pbn9Tj+0 オマエラニホン人がどんぐり拾ってイノシシ狩りして狩猟採集生活していた頃、 あいつらはローマ共和国で選挙していたの。 俺はナチが嫌いだ。俺はドイツが嫌いだ。
[Wikipedia] Byzantine Empire https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byzantine_Empire The Byzantine Empire, or Eastern Roman Empire, was the predominantly Greek-speaking continuation of the eastern part of the Roman Empire during Late Antiquity and the Middle Ages. Its capital city was Constantinople (modern-day Istanbul), originally founded as Byzantium. It survived the fragmentation and fall of the Western Roman Empire in the 5th century AD and continued to exist for an additional thousand years until it fell to the Ottoman Turks in 1453 under the reign of Mehmed the Conqueror.
Constantine XI died without producing an heir, and had Constantinople not fallen he might have been succeeded by the sons of his deceased elder brother, who were taken into the palace service of Mehmed II after the fall of Constantinople. Mehmed II and his successors continued to consider themselves heirs to the Roman Empire until the demise of the Ottoman Empire in the early 20th century. They considered that they had simply shifted its religious basis as Constantine had done before, and they continued to refer to their conquered Eastern Roman inhabitants (Orthodox Christians) as Rum. Meanwhile, the Danubian Principalities (whose rulers also considered themselves the heirs of the Eastern Roman Emperors[159]) harboured Orthodox refugees, including some Byzantine nobles.
At his death, the role of the emperor as a patron of Eastern Orthodoxy was claimed by Ivan III, Grand duke of Muscovy. He had married Andreas' sister, Sophia Paleologue, whose grandson, Ivan IV, would become the first Tsar of Russia (tsar, or czar, meaning caesar, is a term traditionally applied by Slavs to the Byzantine Emperors). Their successors supported the idea that Moscow was the proper heir to Rome and Constantinople.
Following the conquest of Constantinople by the Ottoman Turks in 1453, Sultan Mehmed II took the title "Kaysar-i Rum" (the Ottoman Turkish equivalent of Caesar of Rome), since he was determined to make the Ottoman Empire the heir of the Eastern Roman Empire. According to Cameron, regarding themselves as "heirs" of Byzantium, the Ottomans preserved important aspects of its tradition, which in turn facilitated an "Orthodox revival" during the post-communist period of the Eastern European states. 0335名無しさん@1周年2018/07/12(木) 22:50:47.33ID:Y3Q3z12x0 これもさっきBS1で言ってたんだけどドイツ軍の60%は 技術的な問題で機能して無いとか言ってたよ・・・
[Wikipedia] Volkswagen Beetle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkswagen_Beetle Although designed in the 1930s, the Beetle was only produced in significant numbers from 1945 on (mass production had been put on hold during the Second World War) when the model was internally designated the Volkswagen Type 1, and marketed simply as the Volkswagen (or "People's Car"). フォルクスワーゲン・タイプ1 https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E3%83%95%E3%82%A9%E3%83%AB%E3%82%AF%E3%82%B9%E3%83%AF%E3%83%BC%E3%82%B2%E3%83%B3%E3%83%BB%E3%82%BF%E3%82%A4%E3%83%971 第二次世界大戦勃発で民生用量産は実現せず頓挫 0385名無しさん@1周年2018/07/12(木) 23:27:00.92ID:FRqNCbyd0 トランプ「俺達と仲良くしたけりゃ貢物寄越せ もし俺達を敵に回したらどうなるかわかるな俺達は核を持ってるんだぞ」 0386名無しさん@1周年2018/07/12(木) 23:27:07.62ID:fTQQRhqc0 トランプかっこいい、どんどんやれ 0387名無しさん@1周年2018/07/12(木) 23:31:15.75ID:5Pbn9Tj+0 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. 0388名無しさん@1周年2018/07/12(木) 23:33:03.11ID:5Pbn9Tj+0 The United States, a nation founded on opposition to a standing army, (Part 2 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.
Not until the Second World War did the United States establish what would become a standing army. And even that didn’t happen without dissent. In May of 1941, Robert Taft, a Republican senator from Ohio, warned that America’s entry into the Second World War would mean, ultimately, that the United States “will have to maintain a police force perpetually in Germany and throughout Europe.” Taft, like Nye, was an ardent isolationist. “Frankly, the American people don’t want to rule the world, and we are not equipped to do it. Such imperialism is wholly foreign to our ideals of democracy and freedom,” he said. “It is not our manifest destiny or our national destiny.” In 1944, when Nye ran for reelection, he was defeated. Taft three times failed to win the Republican Presidential nomination. The Second World War demonstrated the folly of their vantage on foreign policy. It also made it more difficult to speak out against arms manufacturers and proponents of boundless military spending.
Still, John Garamendi, a Democrat from California, who during the Vietnam War served as a Peace Corps volunteer in Ethiopia, read aloud from “Chance for Peace,” Eisenhower’s first major address as President, delivered before the American Society of Newspaper Editors on April 16, 1953. Eisenhower had sought the Republican Presidential nomination in order to defeat Taft and the isolationist wing of the G.O.P., but, six years into the Cold War, he was as worried as Nye had been about what an arms race would cost. In the speech, Eisenhower reckoned the price of arms:
Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies in the final sense a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and not clothed. This is a world in arms. This world in arms is not spending money alone; it is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. . . . This is not a way of life at all in any true sense. Under the clouds of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron.
Better known, if less stark, than “Chance for Peace” is the farewell address that Eisenhower delivered when he left office, in 1961, after years of failing to end the U.S.-Soviet arms race. “In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex,” Eisenhower warned then. “Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.”
In 2001, military spending, as a function of the over-all American economy, was, at six per cent, the lowest it had been since the Second World War. Then, for a decade, it rose.
Instead, after 9/11 the United States declared a “global war on terror,” a fight against fear itself. The Iraq War, 2003-11, went on longer than the American Revolution. The war in Afghanistan, begun in 2001, isn’t over yet, making it the second-longest war in American history. (Only Vietnam lasted longer.) 0389名無しさん@1周年2018/07/12(木) 23:33:24.95ID:XcxD5raW0>>1 日本も予算2倍にしろ 自衛隊員の給料を25%アップ! 残り75%で装備品充実させい! 0390名無しさん@1周年2018/07/12(木) 23:33:26.98ID:5Pbn9Tj+0 The United States, a nation founded on opposition to a standing army, (Part 3 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.
The United States, separated from much of the world by two oceans and bordered by allies, is, by dint of geography, among the best-protected countries on earth. Nevertheless, six decades after V-J Day nearly three hundred thousand American troops are stationed overseas, including fifty-five thousand in Germany, thirty-five thousand in Japan, and ten thousand in Italy. Much of the money that the federal government spends on “defense” involves neither securing the nation’s borders nor protecting its citizens. Instead, the U.S. military enforces American foreign policy.
The United States, a nation founded on opposition to a standing army, is now a nation engaged in a standing war. Bacevich locates the origins of America’s permanent war more than a decade before 9/11. “During the entire Cold War era, from 1945 through 1988, large-scale U.S. military actions abroad totalled a scant six,” he reports. “Since the fall of the Berlin Wall, however, they have become almost annual events.” Bacevich places much of the blame for this state of affairs on intellectuals, especially neoconservatives like Norman Podhoretz and Donald Rumsfeld, but also liberals, who, he points out, have eagerly supported the use of the military and of military force “not as an obstacle to social change but as a venue in which to promote it.
On October 13, 2011, at the fifth of Buck McKeon’s hearings on the future of the military, the House Armed Services Committee heard testimony from Leon Panetta, the Secretary of Defense, and General Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Committee attendance was bad, but better than before. (Eleven Democrats and twenty-two Republicans were in the room when the hearing began.)
“The war machine is killing this country!” she cried, as she was carried away.
The hearing resumed. McKeon introduced Panetta. But the moment Panetta began to speak a protester interrupted. He identified himself as an Iraq War veteran. “You are murdering people!” he shouted. “I saw what we did to people. I saw.” He was escorted out of the room.
Protesters are by no means uncommon at congressional hearings, but this particular protest had rattled people. “I know we started the day with protesters in the room, and sometimes they seem disruptive or their tactics are some we might argue with,” Chellie Pingree, a Democrat from Maine, said. “But, frankly, we are facing a time when there are protesters in almost every city where we reside or represent.”
This time?emboldened, maybe, by the protesters?a few committee members offered comments that were more pointed. Niki Tsongas, a Democrat from Massachusetts, told Dempsey, “I would hope you also take into account that not every risk can be dealt with through a military response.” And the questions were tougher. Walter B. Jones, a Republican* from North Carolina, asked Panetta, “Why are we still in Afghanistan?”