Change the last line of that piece to, "Project EXACTO is designed to line the pockets of wealthy defense contractors. Nobody really cares whether it provides a tactical advantage on the battlefield."

Really? What's the per-shot price on these things? Couldn't that money be spent on better training and higher wages for troops so you attract a better quality of personnel in the first place? If the US military spent half what they do on these boondoggle science-fiction experiments on their troops they'd be far more combat capable.

The crazy thing is that the US military budget doesn't even include the cost of the war in Iraq, which is an additional 2 - 6 trillion dollars....

The US Military uses meters and kilometers.

What did you think something like "we are 2 klicks south of your position" meant?

http://usmilitary.about.com/od/theorderlyroom/f/faqklickdef.htm

"Adding that to the explicitly military and overseas contingency funding, the real dimensions of the US military-intelligence-police-prison complex begin to come into view: a staggering $830 billion, more than 80 cents out of every dollar in the funding bill, is devoted to killing, spying on, imprisoning or otherwise oppressing the people of the world, including the American people."

Not sure I'd put it that way, but still...

https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2014/12/13/budg-d13.html

Is it not hilarious that he's OK with his entire network lambasting his idiotic idea, but when a comedian does it it's time to have a shit fit?!
To those who might think it sounds like a good idea to arm a private mercenary army with top notch military equipment and pay them to kill 'our enemies' with impunity, please remember that nearly every time this leads to our equipment in the hands of our enemies being used against us, often by the same people we gave it to in the first place, AND the creation of more enemies. Mercenaries only work for the highest bidder, the instant that's not you, it's not your army and may be your enemy (with your best equipment and knowledge of your systems).
Also, if we pay them to kill overseas, does anyone really think we are absolved of responsibility (especially in the minds of the locals) because they don't wear US military clothing? Just duh.

EDIT: Wait...did we misunderstand, and is Bill slyly suggesting we pay our bill to the UN and get some protection from their 'mercenary army'?!

EDIT: I think you meant to say 'how can you NOT disagree that an organization that commits actual massacres...actual fucking massacres is better than Faux News?', meaning 'How can you agree Isis is better than Faux?'...right? You forgot to double the negative.

I think that can be reasonably asked because Faux news (and others) has essentially become the propaganda wing of another organization that commits MORE actual massacres (but usually from a distance...I'm talking about the US military industrial complex here). That makes them directly complicit in and a facilitator and even instigator of the killing of hundreds of thousands of 'innocent' (non-threatening) people, to me that's likely worse than directly killing hundreds, even if you only ascribe 5% culpability/responsibility to them, perhaps it's not to you.
It's a bit like if you're in a disagreement with your neighbor and your cousin comes over with a baseball bat, knives, and a stun gun, gives them to you and then constantly, angrily, threateningly, cajoles you into violent action against your neighbor. The cousin will be (properly) prosecuted right there with you when you murder your neighbor and his family...so should Faux news be.

Even in the nuclear world. we're human, and we fuck up. I get that. So to be quite honest, the idea that a armed nuclear bomb was almost accidentally dropped on US soil really doesn't bother me too much.

What bothers me, is that...you bet your sweet ass that if that bomb had detonated.....we would have covered it up.....There is no way in hell the military back then would have admitted we dropped a bomb on ourselves. we would have blamed the Russians, and we would have gone to war.

An accident, I can forgive, but turning an accident, no matter how big, into WW3....

Granted, I know I am speculating. I just cant see the US military saying, "oops, our bad. sorry about that whole "wiping you out of existence" thing, North Carolina"

There have to be some seriously disillusioned brass in the ranks of the US military in light of this latest clusterfuck in the region-Have a hard time imagining this recent development is not by design...none of this shit happens accidentally.

They alter Hollywood scripts for studios that want US military hardware in their movies. Want to film a taxpayer funded aircraft carrier in this/any movie you're making?? We're not keen on this line where the guy mentions CIA heroin dealing/ lies to invade Iraq / torture centres / deathsquads etc etc..
Some say no (independence day) most go along with it as economic neccesity, others have their nose so far up the military ass they make Leni Riefenstahl look like a impassionate observer (Bruckhemer/Scott etc).
Didn't you wonder why all modern mainstream Hollywood films have become propaganda?

What is the US military propaganda wing?

Uber-liberal Redford is in it for a reason. Course its also bankrolled by the US military propaganda wing (or if it's not its the only action movie hollywood's made this year that isn't) so it cant say anything dangerous..

while i think the "evil" lurks in the concept of political parties (divide and conquer), you are much more likely to see a republican cheering on a police beating, a lynching, MMA, Nascar, or an invasion by the US Military.

I'm boring? It took you the equivalent of a book to answer a few simple questions. Did I as for a lecture on the oath of office? No. Did I ask for a lecture on the forth estate? No.

You used one as an excuse the other as a reason but nether answered the questions.

Finely after all the dogma I get an answer. A piss poor answer but its better than you rehashing the same thing for a forth time.

So Lets look at what you provided.

First Article.
Shit.. An article repeating the same dogma again for a forth time.....

Second Article.
FINELY! Examples! was that so hard? Really?
and it shows. Nothing that was not already known. (My Opinion)

"A Pentagon spokesman told the New York Times this week that under its procedure, when reports of Iraqi abuse were received the US military "notifies the responsible government of Iraq agency or ministry for investigation and follow-up".

If you know a better way?


So what did his leaks really do?

Retired Air Force Lt. Col. Martin Nehring, a classification expert who submitted written testimony, said that upon reviewing the information Manning released, he discovered that it included techniques for neutralizing improvised explosives, names of enemy targets, names of criminal suspects and troop movements, according to The Guardian.

Navy Reserve Lt. Cmdr. Thomas Hoskins also reviewed the documents and found potentially damaging information, including codewords, tactics and techniques for responding to roadside bombings, weapon capabilities, and assistance the U.S. military had received in tracking down suspects from foreign nationals, The Guardian reported.

These are just some of the reasons I consider him a traitor. This put people at risk.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/11/bradley-manning-wikileaks-trial-prosecution


He should of just released documentation on what he thought were the crimes or corruption. Not all of it and defiantly not that information.

No, he doesn't think we need more government. In fact, he always proned "less government". He really doesn't care about labels and defends no agenda. He has a lot of to say about capitalism and US military policies. You might enjoy reading some of his books.

Hey,
sorry I didn't reply earlier, but I figured since you had gone to all that effort I actually wanted to read everything properly.

First up, that does seem like quite a reasonable level of control on handguns.

Is that a state specific requirement? Because looking at this page that doesn't seem the case for all states.

Personally I don't have a problem with making someone jump through a few hoops to get a gun.

As for the government trying to take over, surely the way to defeat these kinds of rights abuses are through the democratic system?

As for Iraq and Afghanistan, leaving the right or wrong of it aside, the "war" part went exceedingly well. The US rolled in and pretty much crushed any opposition. It's the "peace" they're having trouble with. But in real terms, the US military occupied those countries and despite the undoubted problems they're having with IEDs etc, no-one is really suggesting that the "insurgents" are anywhere even close to a military victory.

But ultimately I believe it is politics (for all it's evils) that will prevent the US becoming a dictatorship not arms.