Masshole

The U.S. is running out of bombs to drop on ISIS http://edition.cnn.com/2015/12/04/politics/air-force-20000-bombs-missiles-isis/index.html Seems a bit Chicken-Littleish to me, but how accurate is it?

I live in Arlington right by the Ballston metro, and I would recommend this area for its safety and proximity to good schools. When the Metro isn't on fire the commute is pretty seamless as the orange and silver line both take you into DC, though you must switch lines for the Pentagon and they are scaling way back on the blue line for whatever stupid reason. Driving is a problem all around because 66 cuts to two lanes in one of the busiest areas, the Beltway and 95 are awful, and the Key Bridge is a wreck waiting to happen at all times. My work is near Arlington and taking the back roads is easy.

I like the new look of the site. I have not looked on mobile yet but to me this seems very well organized.

I wish the best of luck to you! I will follow to see you succeed.

Not unless you shook hands with the devil and advocate self-rape. Dafuq is this?

http://stopmasturbationnow.org/celebrity/sign-our-petition-to-get-american-actor-hugh-jackman-to-change-his-offensive-name/ (StopMasturbationNOW)—This is a reminder that we need more signatures to force American actor Hugh Jackman to change his offensive name. As of noon 6/12/2015 we have had 753,252 signatures which is over 75% of the needed one million required to force a name change. Our children are bombarded with anti family values messages everyday and the last thing we parents need to worry about is the name of an actor appearing subliminally in movie credits.

Sell yourself on your leadership qualities through letters of recommendation, your personal statement, volunteer/work background, ect. Your scores tell you that you are at least in the top half of candidates, now push yourself ahead with everything else.

How so? Because I do not drive up to a border patrol or stroll up to a TSA gate loooking to fight? What is the problem when I answer their questions? Maybe the problem is I just assume I am going to have to identify myself when I travel, instead of believing I can freely move about this world without ever having to answer to anyone. That's not how it works, and if you would like to see an example of how porous borders negatively impact safety, please go to my native country. I am sure showing your passport/driver's liscence at TSA is exactly what Benjamin Franklin had in mind. I do not think it is quite the same. If a police officer pulls you over for no reason and asks for your proof of citizenship, I would be a little concerned. Then I would question the reason for his inquiries.

I do not know, I have no qualms answering (mostly) yes or no questions. It is their job to do so and I have nothing to hide. I understand as someone with a foreign accent but with an American name, I am going to have to be subject to a more pressing set of questions. In today's world I am willing to sacrifice a little more time at border patrol or TSA gates in lieu of letting something slip by.

I do not understand. Why so much money for this? What damage was done in the argument that cost so much? It seems excessive but I cannot say I really understand how this works. Is that just some arbitrary amount you request in hopes you settle somewhere above a goal amount?

What do you mean by throwing their money elsewhere? There is not much I can say but there are many defense officials speaking of how China is allocating its money and you can look at their budgets. The Chinese are currently not capable of producing the top-of-the-line stuff, they rely on others to export their technologies. As 11F has mentioned, China has reckless abandon regarding export partners and could definitely proliferate technologies to third parties. That is the serious threat.

We are still very far ahead of China and Russia, who have very serious innovation and development problems of their own. There have been many articles and testimony about the inevitability of conflict with China and they say that is what the increase in technology is about, but no one takes into account the people that would be fighting this conflict. Neither American nor Chinese constituencies have appetite for conflict. There is no doubt that the Chinese do want to become the main power in the Pacific but that hugely depends on economic predominance that they would forego by starting a conflict with the U.S., especially because of the still present gap in capabilities between China and America.

http://blogs.rollcall.com/five-by-five/lockheed-martin-on-f-35-no-gun-software-glitch-sensor-upgrades-expected/?dcz= "On Monday we shared some bad news stories about the F-35′s gun and its sensor system. Contractor Lockheed Martin, which had not responded publicly at the time, offered this response: 'Contrary to the media reporting out there, there’s no gun system software glitches or timeline delays,' said Mike Rein, a company spokesman, by telephone. 'The requirement for the gun was established in 2005. It’s always been in the block 3F weapons to be delivered in 2017, not 2019.' 'In 2008, the gun completed all of its ground qualification testing. This year we’re going to do comprehensive flight test out of Edwards, include ground fire tests, muzzle calibration, flight test integration and in-flight operational tests,' Rein said. Further, the services know 'that when they declare IOC [initial operating capability] they aren’t going to have all their weapons on their airplane at that time.' Rein also offered a written statement on the Electro-Optical Targeting System,'a proven advance targeting capability.' According to Rein: 'EOTS allows F-35 to conduct air-to-air and air-to-surface targeting missions while maintaining the F-35’s VLO [very low observable] profile – a capability that external podded systems simply cannot provide.' As of now, the overall radar, communications and electronic warfare capabilities support the execution of close air support missions, Rein said. He added: 'As with all development programs, F-35 baseline requirements define the starting place for capabilities that will be evolved and upgraded over the life of the program. There are a range of potential upgrades and enhancements for EOTS that will be implemented by the services and international partners for inclusion in future Block upgrades. Some of the additional capabilities for consideration include items such as Higher Definition Video, longer range target detection and identification, Video Data Link, and Infrared (IR) Marker and Pointer. All of the services and international partners are aware of the block upgrade plan and have endorsed its timeline.'"

I want to add that President Obama and President Xi just recently reached agreement announcing military intentions and operations but some are still sceptic that it will actually alleviate tensions.

I am not so sure the Philippines so much expect us to become involved but they are strengthening their ties with us as deterrent in the very least, along with many other nations in the region currently having issues with China's seemingly provocative expansion. What the PRC is doing is stupid and dangerous and if they truly do not mean to start military conflict they need to be more proactive with diplomacy than they are currently. There has been a lot of miscommunication between China and the U.S. recently, especially with meaning of words from Secretary Kerry. I think that is what they are seeing as "f it not my problem now." With the airfields I think they were trying to pass it off as a benefit to tourism, which is laughable but they have not been very clear with it either way. Japan and ASEAN are being pushed closer together, and the last thing China wants is a unified front encircling them along with the awakening of smouldering nationalism and other right-wing Japanese hostility. Their stubborness is creating more problems than they can resolve right now. As you made mention of a failure of U.S. projection, there needs to be a harsher stance with China since they saw some of our weaknesses exposed with Russia and Syria. They very much want to be the dominant Pacific power, and in a way they already are. I think in the near future they will start to seize ports.

I lived most of my life in China and near China, and have been granted great opportunities to work with the intelligence community on the issue, so I like to have this discussion. The ability to project force does not say anything about China's willingness to use it. Chinese leaders seemed very set on raising forces to prepare for what they called "limited war" with Taiwan, and they had expected for the United States to enter the conflict if it happened. They planned to fight an enemy much more technologically superior, but nothing came to fruition. Now it is China's aim to develop capability and doctrine to proctect the expanding global interests. Chinese military documents are now more focused on broader range of military operations to secure the territorial integrity and global interests. They have called for the defensive of their people, infrastructure, and investments in many of the same dangerous places we focus our attention. China is most definitely seeking ability to defend itself overseas but that does not mean the United States and China are on collision course. While there is deep strategic distrust between the United States and China as China's economic growth, military modernization, and nationalistic propaganda limit the possibilities of compromising with foreign powers, conflict with the PRC is not inevitable. There is much recognition that both sides engage each other to avoid a conflict, mostly on the most contentious points such as Taiwan and American maritime surveillance operations inside China's exclusive economic zone. I can see China expanding in the Pacific as they are not shy about seeking to move past the "first island chain" consisting of the imaginary line from Japan through Okinawa and Taiwan and further south to the Philippines and South China Sea onward towards the "second island chain," which is the imaginary line from Japan through Guam to Australia. However there is no chatter from Chinese strategists about expansion as far as the establishment of foreign bases, outpost, or supply stations. Maybe in the future they will be wanting to receive overseas basing agreements with allies where they can position forces but that is not happening now.

Other than an attempt at political posturing I am not sure why it was released. Everyone pretty much knew about it anyways. For a long time now there has been a perception that the United States sanctions torture and that it was commonplace practice during the Global War on Terror, but this is not what the facts suggest. Since the end of 2001 there have been 300 cases of alleged detainee abuse across the entire Joint Operations Area. 155 of those cases have undergone a complete investigation, 66 of those were determined to have been abuse of detainees under American control. If the same rate holds for the remaining 145 cases, you can add another 64 instances.Stacked against the total number of detainees (over 50,000 stated by a DoD panel on Detention Operations) the percentage of abused detainees under control of the United States is 0.26 percent. Do not get me wrong, anything over 0.00 percent is not acceptable, but 99.74 percent of interrogators and soldiers conducted themselves according to a higher moral standard. This hardly grants credence to the media's constant reports of how the United States abuses its detainees or any drive to swing the pendulum at another political party to claim they advocate abuse. From what I gather, the largest grey area fueling them is a time period between January 15 and April 16 of 2003 when there were approved "additional" interrogation techniques approved only for use at GTMO that never appeared in the FM 34-52. Somehow that list of approved additional techniques ended up in Afghanistan in February of 2003 and to Abu Ghraib in July of 2003. Other than that, the government has relied on a fairly strong standard to keep the conduct of interrogators away from grey areas that can be interpreted as torture. No, they are most certainly not but it does not mean we should sacrifice the morals and values we hold just because the enemy has no value for human life. That is what separates us from them.

Nope.

So a large amount of the world's leaders were in attendance at this funeral, but no one knows who the guy standing next to the podium faking sign language is? Missed opportunity by the terrorists.

I do not know what you mean by "porking it away" but the Taliban is not gone and I do not believe Karzai has laid the groundwork for reforming and reconciling ethnic tensions among the groups in Afghanistan. No, here are readings you can peruse: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-23041513 http://www.marketplace.org/topics/world/nelson-mandelas-legacy-economic-too http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/139392/ryan-irwin/mandelas-unfinished-business The last one is tailored greatly for this argument. It is the failure of leadership post-Mandela that has lead to what you use to discredit him. This is Mandela's fault?

I learned the vulgarity becoming a Boston sports fan. For this I think English is the hardest language to learn without any competition. It has taken me 10 years so far and I still have no idea what to do in most cases. Though I am not sure how hard it is to learn Mandarin or Cantonese from an outside perspective. I imagine the tones, especially in Cantonese, are similar in difficulty to the homonyms of English.

For not wanting to argue feelings, you initiated it with the passive-aggressive pet names. Sweetie? LOL. Grow up. I am arguing facts. I am arguing based on what is published in academic journals (ie Council on Foreign Relations) to counter your extremist blogs. You want to blame the Marikana Massacre on Nelson Mandela? Seriously? You are trying to completely discredit his efforts to promote nonracial democracy and racial reconciliation, which is severely misguided, on the failures of his successors. I and the others advocating his legacy agree he is not perfect and handled some things poorly, but he had shaped South Africa to be free of repression and to be a place where human rights are guaranteed by law. As far as unemployment in South Africa, yes, it is not good, but don't cherry-pick statistics because you're missing out on the whole picture. They are regarded as an emerging market by experts (not just message board members) because they are making progress and show signs of growth. They are chosen to become the bridge for the rest of the world with Africa. I should have but you are right that I do not know much of her. I was born in 1994, only a few years after her reign.

Correct me if I am wrong since I am not a native speaker, but those definitions are contradictions. Actually- existing in fact. Virtually- approximately. For the same fucking word.

Wrong, there is plenty of data. If you do not see the need to venture outside of the extremist blogs that have little to no academic value and read the onslaught of legitimate articles that detail Mandela's legacy and the progress South Africa has made since apartheid, then there's nothing I can do for you but be leery of such ignorance in future discussions. No, Mandela was not perfect, but he improved the quality of life for a great deal of South Africans. Whether you like it or not, he was a foreign dignitary and our president paid him respect. What point about Thatcher? I made no mention of her.