We are fortunate to live in a nation with an economic system capable of producing for its people the highest standard of living in the world; a system flexible enough to change its ways dramatically when circumstances call for change; and, most important, a system resourceful enough to produce prosperity with freedom and opportunity unmatched in the history of nations. The purposes of the Government actions I have announced tonight are to lay the basis for renewed confidence, to make it possible for us to compete fairly with the rest of the world, to open the door to new prosperity. But government, with all of its powers, does not hold the key to the success of a people. That key, my fellow Americans, is in your hands. A nation, like a person, has to have a certain inner drive in order to succeed. In economic affairs, that inner drive is called the competitive spirit. Every action I have taken tonight is designed to nurture and stimulate that competitive spirit, to help us snap out of the self-doubt, the self-disparagement that saps our energy and erodes our confidence in ourselves. Whether this Nation stays number one in the world's economy or resigns itself to second, third, or fourth place; whether we as a people have faith in ourselves, or lose that faith; whether we hold fast to the strength that makes peace and freedom possible in this world, or lose our grip--all that depends on you, on your competitive spirit, your sense of personal destiny, your pride in your country and in yourself. We can be certain of this: As the threat of war recedes, the challenge of peaceful competition in the world will greatly increase. We welcome competition, because America is at her greatest when she is called on to compete. As there always have been in our history, there will be voices urging us to shrink from that challenge of competition, to build a protective wall around ourselves, to crawl into a shell as the rest of the world moves ahead. Two hundred years ago a man wrote in his diary these words: "Many thinking people believe America has seen its best days." That was written in 1775, just before the American Revolution--the dawn of the most exciting era in the history of man. And today we hear the echoes of those voices, preaching a gospel of gloom and defeat, saying the same thing: "We have seen our best days." I say, let Americans reply: "Our best days lie ahead." As we move into a generation of peace, as we blaze the trail toward the new prosperity, I say to every American: Let us raise our spirits. Let us raise our sights. Let all of us contribute all we can to this great and good country that has contributed so much to the progress of mankind. Let us invest in our Nation's future, and let us revitalize that faith in ourselves that built a great nation in the past and that will shape the world of the future. Thank you and good evening. Note: The President spoke at 9 p.m. in the Oval Office at the White House. His address was broadcast live on radio and television. On the same day, the White House released an advance text of the President's address and the transcript of a news briefing on the new economic policy by John B. Connally, Secretary of the Treasury, George P. Shultz, Director, Office of Management and Budget, and Patti W. McCracken, Chairman, Council of Economic Advisers. In Dallas, Tex., on August 19, 1971, Press Secretary Ronald L. Ziegler read a statement about the reaction of the Governor of Texas to the wage-price freeze. It is printed in the Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents (vol. 7, p. 1204). On August 20, the White House released the transcript of a news briefing by Caspar W. Weinberger, Chairman, Regulations and Purchasing Review Board, and Deputy Director, Office of Management and Budget, on the efforts of the Board to insure that the suppliers of Government purchases are in full compliance with the wage-price freeze.

🧑🏻‍🎓 چون یکشنبه تعطیل هست و شماها هم دو هفته وقت دارید،متن " New Economic Policy " اعلام شده توسط ریچارد نیکسون در سخنرانی (August 15, 1971) را ترجمه نموده و توضیح دهید که نیکسون در مورد اجرای کدام قسمت از کدامیک از سیاستهای اعلام شده دروغ گفته بود و چرا.

🌺🌷🌹💐🌺🌷🌹💐🌺🌷🌹💐🌺🌷🌹💐🌺🌷🌹💐 اللّهُمَّ اَهْلَ الْکِبْرِیاَّءِ وَالْعَظَمَهِ وَاَهْلَ الْجُودِ وَالْجَبَرُوتِ وَاَهْلَ الْعَفْوِ وَالرَّحْمَهِ وَاَهْلَ التَّقْوی وَالْمَغْفِرَهِ اَسْئَلُکَ بِحَقِّ هذَا الْیَومِ الَّذی جَعَلْتَهُ لِلْمُسْلِمینَ عیداً وَلِمُحَمَّدٍ صَلَّی اللّهُ عَلَیْهِ وَ الِهِ ذُخْراً وَشَرَفاً وَمَزِیْداً اَنْ تُصَلِّیَ عَلی مُحَمَّدٍ وَ الِ مُحَمَّدٍ وَاَنْ تُدْخِلَنی فی کُلِّ خَیْرٍ اَدْخَلْتَ فیهِ مُحَمَّداً وَ الَ مُحَمَّدٍ وَاَنْ تُخْرِجَنی مِنْ کُلِّ سُوَّءٍ اَخْرَجْتَ مِنْهُ مُحَمَّداً وَ الَ مُحَمَّدٍ صَلَواتُکَ عَلَیْهِ وَعَلَیْهِمْ اَللّهُمَّ اِنّی اَسْئَلُکَ خَیْرَ ما سَئَلَکَ مِنْهُ عِبادُکَ الصّالِحُونَ وَاَعُوذُ بِکَ مِمَّا اسْتَعاذَ مِنْهُ عِبادُکَ الْمُخلَصونَ 🌺🌷🌹💐🌺🌷🌹💐🌺🌷🌹💐🌺🌷🌹💐🌺🌷🌹💐

There are two very stark downsides to choosing a referendum as the way to resolve an issue. The first is that a referendum campaign opens the space for actors on either side to portray the choice between the status quo and the proposed change as a false one, and to seduce voters with false promises based on fantasies of what ideal outcome might be delivered as an alternative if voters reject the course elites like party leaders have recommended. A core purpose of referendums is to engage those with relatively low information about the issues, which is to say the general population, in the choice. This makes them especially vulnerable to producing decisions based on false information and/or unrealistic beliefs about what alternatives are possible - often stoked by opportunistic actors within the political system. The second downside is that referendum campaigns themselves can be savagely divisive, especially when the prospect of a narrow victory tempts campaigners to use every argument at their disposal. Political division in both the UK and Colombia has been markedly intensified by the 2016 campaigns there. The Australian government is presently considering a ‘plebiscite’ on the issue of marriage equality even though a clear majority in favour exists in parliament; many are strongly opposed on the grounds that such a campaign would be socially divisive, and might even provide a platform that legitimises hate speech. Above all, the key principle of referendums for any government is this: if you call one, you had better be certain you are going to win. Because if you don’t, the political costs for both the leaders responsible and the country at large are often vast.

نه! این متن را چون ساده بودم گذاشتم که بدون دیکشنری ترجمه کنید خیلی ربطی به ایران نداره اما خب شاید به فهم صورت مسئله کمک کنه چون قانون اساسی جمهوری اسلامی ایران یه ترکیبی از قوانین اساسی اروپایی را تو خودش داره، یکیش اصل 59 قانون اساسی جمهوری اسلامی ایران که گفته: در مسائل بسیار مهم اقتصادی, سیاسی, اجتماعی و فرهنگی ممکن است اعمال قوه مقننه از راه همه پرسی و مراجعه مستقیم به آرا مردم صورت گیرد. در خواست مراجعه به آراء عمومی باید به تصویب دو سوم مجموع نمایندگان مجلس برسد. یکی دیگه اش اصل 94 که گفته: کلیه مصوبات مجلس شورای اسلامی باید به شورای نگهبان فرستاده شود. شورای نگهبان موظف است آن را حداکثر ظرف ده روز از تاریخ وصول از نظر انطباق بر موازین اسلام و قانون اساسی مورد بررسی قرار دهد و چنانچه آن را مغایر ببیند برای تجدید نظر به مجلس بازگرداند. در غیر این صورت مصوبه قابل اجرا است. سال 1381 که شما ها خیلی خیلی کوچولو بودید یه مشت قالتاق که میخواستند قانون اساسی را عوض کنند این بحث را مطرح کردند که "تصویب دو سوم مجموع نمایندگان مجلس" یعنی این دیگه شورای نگهبان لازم نیست و که اگر دو سوم نماینده ها مثلا به همه پرسی راجع به یه چیز خلاف شرع (مثلا همجنس بازی) یا یه چیز خلاف قانون اساسی (مثلا برده داری) هم رای دادند که شورای نگهبان ردش میکنه میشه رفراندوم گذاشت و تبدیلش کرد به قانون که با وجود این که این حرف کلا به معنی پیچوندن کل قانون اساسی جمهوری اسلامی از طریق دور زدن اصل 94 بود از شورای نگهبان درخواست "تفسیر" کردند شورای نگهبان هم توضیح واضحات داد و گفت: درخواست مراجعه به آراء عمومی موضوع اصل 59 قانون اساسی از مصادیق مصوبات مجلس شورای اسلامی است و باید طبق اصل 94 قانون اساسی به شورای نگهبان ارسال شود. به عبارت خیلی ساده تر گفت: آقا "تصویب" یعنی "تصویب"! خب حالا اگر یه سیاستمدار مسئولی تو ایران سر اجرای یه سیاستی که خلاف شرع و خلاف قانون اساسی نیست رای دو سوم مجموع نمایندگان مردم را داشته باشه که اصلا نیازی به رفراندوم نداره مثل آدم قانون تصویب میکنه تایید شورای نگهبان را میگیره! میمونه موضوعاتی مثل 1- عوض کردن خود قانون اساسی که اونجا ما جز کشورهایی هستیم اصلا (Mandatory Referendum) یا رفراندوم اجباری داریم اصلا جای بحث نداره. 2- موضوعاتی که میشه سرشون مردم را از طریق وعده تغییر وضع موجود به وضع بهتر با اطلاعات نادرست گول زد (اما نماینده های مردم و شورای نگهبان را نمیشه یا سخت تر میشه)! 3- موضوعات مورد علاقه خارجی ها و غیر مسئول ها که اونا کلا از رفراندوم دنبال براندازی نرم در جریان دو قطبی سازی هستند یعنی حتی اگر سر موضوعی که دوست دارند رفراندوم هم گذاشته بشه اما نتیجه چیزی که اونا میخوان نباشه هم میگن تقلب شده و رای من کجاست و ...

Mitra, Joy. Conventional Military Strategy in the Third Nuclear Age. London and New York: Routledge, 2023.

📖 Mitra, Joy. Conventional Military Strategy in the Third Nuclear Age. London and New York: Routledge, 2023.

صفحه 5 این کتاب را ترجمه بفرمایید تا من بیام. ترجمه کامل قبلی را هم بدید.

Miller, Raymond C. International Political Economy: Contrasting World Views. New York: Routledge, 2008.

📖 Miller, Raymond C. International Political Economy: Contrasting World Views. New York: Routledge, 2008.

❌❌❌❌❌❌❌❌❌❌❌❌❌❌❌❌ صفحۀ 99 این کتاب را ترجمه کنید تا من بیام (برای این که بازی نکنید وقتی رسیدم فرصت این بخش از کار شما تمام هست) یه صفحه دیگه از کتاب را میدم. ضمنا میدونم که کتاب "ترجمه" شده میخوام فکر نکنید داشتن ترجمه کمکی به شما میکنه. ❌❌❌❌❌❌❌❌❌❌❌❌❌❌❌❌

Acharya, Amitav; Buzan, Barry. The Making of Global International Relations: Origins and Evolution of IR at Its Centenary. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2019.