I never said something like this was a bad thing, just that you don't push children into wanting to do something like that. Like you said, it comes from within.

That's true, but realistically no one decides as a child that they will be a world leader or a CEO. Parents who drive and "prep" their kids from an early age to do so are more likely to just burn their kids out before they even get to college. Just like you said, Jobs became Jobs "later in life". Push your children to do what they enjoy, and if they have the talent and the desire to be the next Jobs, they will have the opportunity to do so.

And isn't that a better, much more realistic goal a parent should push their kid towards than founding a global tech company? Working a well paying job that allows you to live comfortably and gives you enough free time and means to do something you enjoy at home, what more could you ask for?

In their defense, they do now point out that "not all credits may transfer". To me this is just a red flag that no other school considers their classes as worth anything.

Educated is also an adjective, as in "an educated person". "I became [adjective]" is a valid sentence with valid structure and "get" in the sense of the GP is a colloqial form of "become". You can "get taller", "get fatter", "get healtier". And, as I have just shown, even pedants can "get educated".

Just look at the second example here.

Besides being wrong on numbers, the US wants to fight conventional wars because that is what our military is designed to do. Our equipment and training is designed to slug it out with a modern, mechanized force and overwhelm them with firepower. Thats why we have tanks, fleets of jet aircraft, and a very large navy. These kinds of weapons (not including the navy, of course) are best utilized in battlefields that are large and lightly populated. A low-intesity unconventional war completely negates most of our technological advantage. An Abrams can't rotate it's turret in a densely packed urban street. Jet fighters can't loiter over an area for hours providing immidiate close air support(closest air support might be 15-30 minutes away when it is needed now) and lose effectiveness in an urban setting surrounded by non-combatants. That means combat is done mostly with boots on the ground with guys behind rifles, not armor. And if you have guys trudging up mountains or walking down alleys you can only armor them so much otherwise they can't fight effectively. This leaves them vulnerable to the other guys who only have rifles and light weapons that normally wouldn't be able to stand up to our armor but allows them to hold their own against infantry. Throughout the history of warfare unconventional combat has always favored the smaller force.

Since when is ISIS zionist? Because they are pretty much the only one's dismantling other states. Hell, Israel has a hard enough time just keeping the Palestinians in check.

If the choices are between getting torn up in what is almost a civil war because you are so insecure with your own power you can't even help arm the only groups that have been somewhat effective at stopping an armed group trying to destroy you or being on the verge of a massive famine I would just give up at that point.

Because there are only 25 AC-130s in active service right now. They can only be in so many places at once, and can only support one unit at a time. A large fleet of A-10s allows for CAS for a much larger battlefield. And as for "aging A-10s", you do realize the AC-130 was introduced almost a decade before the A-10 was, right?

As an American I apologize to you. The F-35 should never have been built, the money should have gone to continued production of the F-22.

This wouldn't be necessary if the Air Force wasn't obsessed with retiring the A-10. But then again, maintinaing an already existing airframe is much less profitable than government contract for R&D and production runs for a new airframe, and any general worth his stars would jump at the chance to leave his mark by helming the procurement of a major weapons system.

The HUD must not be all that great if you keep running out of gas multiple times.

Individual civil sanctions just like with any other contract.

From how I am understanding it, the government promised to make changes, and quite possibly was elected at least partially because of their promises. If so, that could possibly be construed as entering into a (verbal) contract, which when they fail to carry out these promises would bring them into the jurisdiction of the courts as breach of contract? This would be a great precident too, if the courts could be used to actually force politican to uphold campaign promises.

Just grow a beard to hide that distinctively shaped chin, or pluck your eyebrows.