US forces bomb another hospital

So those countries want us to leave, do they?

When you say "those countries", who do you mean exactly? The rulers of the countries (many of which are in place solely because of the US) or the people of those countries? And why is it relevant anyway?

Oh yeah, the US controls the government in Brazil!

Do you realize that your stupid and misleading chart shows China as "dominated" by the US, but not Mexico?

I didn't say anything about Brazil. And the chart shows "military co-operation" with China.

Really, one shouldn't have to explain to educated adults who live in todays world that the US seeks worldwide military dominance. But this is the kind of doublethink that the corporate media creates I suppose.

Since the US decidedly does not seek worldwide military dominance, one shouldn't have to explain to an educated adult why that chart doesn't say what Rick thinks it says.

The US Department of Defense disagrees with you.

http://www.offiziere.ch/wp-content/uploads/1225.pdf

So that the rest of our allies can sniff disdainfully about our military while enjoying its protection, like a bunch of spoiled children?

Vicarious "protection" sucks - attempting to make others complicit without giving them a choice in the matter.

Capability <> active domination. Also worth noting, the DoD isn't talking about worldwide simultaneous dominance. They mean the ability to achieve short term local dominance. These concepts are thoroughly different from what you are trying to imply.

The ability to achieve "short term local dominance" anywhere in the world makes the US overwhelmingly dominant in the military sphere. That's exactly what I'm trying to imply.

Then you might want to review your rhetoric, because what you actually imply is that there is active worldwide dominance, something that is demonstrably untrue aside from on water.

Several reasons:

1) American forces are all expeditionary forces. Which overall average about 5 -6 times as expensive man for man. The only other nation in the world whose military forces are largely expeditionary is the U.K.

2) The U.S. nuclear arsenal provides what used to be called the "nuclear umbrella" for dozens of other nations so they do not have to maintain nuclear forces. Overall, I think its a good thing that the Japanese and Germans (to name just two) don't have nuclear weapons.

3) The U.S. doesn't have a draft. The military has to compete in pay and benefits with the one of the wealthiest economies in the world for manpower.

4) In addition, the U.S. spends lavishly on its soldiers man for man to minimize their risks in various ways. This includes state of the art medical care, lavishly equipping them with various weapons and equipment.

5) The United States for obvious reasons of self interest defends not just the 50 states but all of North America including Canada and Mexico.

6) The U.S. has committments that overlap with its allies that its allies don't have. For example the U.S. is committed to maintaining the security of sea lanes such as the flow of oil through the Persian Gulf and Indian Ocean while it is committed to helping defend South Korea. But South Korea does little or nothing to help with security in the Persian Gulf.

7) The U.S. tries to stay on the cutting edge of military technology so it spends a lot on research and development which it then allows its allies to benefit from. Such as in the F-35 fighter program.

Aside from those points something else:

8) How do we really know how much nations opposed to the United States spend on their military? Despite massive intelligence work, during the Cold War the U.S. NEVER knew how much the Soviets were spending? Why would things be different now regarding China, Russia, Iran, or North Korea?

That last part would be a good example of why we should have the authority/capability to go into Pakistan when the Taliban hops across the border from Afghanistan. Why we should be able to fly over France with F-111 aircraft from England to bomb Libya instead of flying around France, adding more air hours/miles to the already distant target. BTW one of the first bombs hit the French embassy - whoops-a-daisy! Maybe the pilot didn't get enough sleep since his missipon took more time.

Comedy Gold! Funny, funny stuff! A veritable Laugh-Riot!​

I take it you stopped reading after "full spectrum dominance."

"full spectrum dominance" sounds like Dennis Rodman in a gay bar.

So let me get this straight - if a superpower nation has a military (let's take the US as an example) would it benefit that nation if their military was not a dominant force in the world? If that huge nation were to scale back and just field a tiny emegency contingency token military would that nation (and the world) benefit from their weakened state? For fun let's say the US had the military budget and capabilities of Ireland or Burma. Would Russia, China, ISIS (crazy extremists in general) play along and downsize too, and we all are equal and live in peace?
Or would the strong nation(s) move in for the kill like a pack of wolves devouring a once powerful but unkillable moose - who now has two broken legs and will soon be the main course for a pack of wolves? Has there ever been a truly holy-shit world shaking nation that didn't want their miltary to dominate?

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/rus...medium=UKDJ Twitter Account&utm_campaign=SNAP

Well, it looks like Russia bombed a hospital in Syria but I don't think I will hold my breath waiting for Rick to make a thread about that one.

No Ricks excuse will be "everyone knows the Russians are asses so there will be no point". But Americans claim a higher standard so we should slam them if they violate.

In the HenryHill world (and he is not the only one) having morals and standards isn't a good thing in and of itself, it is just an excuse to criticize people or nations that fall short.

Which leaders would those be?

Stephen Harper of Canada? Angela Merkel of Germany? Shinzo Abe of Japan?

There may well be a few, but what percentage are we really talking about here?

Let me get this straight, you're suggesting that whether or not a country wants a United States military presence shouldn't matter?

http://www.theguardian.com/world/20...ed-since-russian-airstrikes-began-doctors-say

The Russians have deliberately bombed four different hospitals in Syria in the last month yet Rick, in his anti-American haze, has not bothered to make a single thread about those attacks. Only the one where the Americans attacked a Taliban command and control center based out of a hospital has gotten his attention.

So what is the fantasy in that post, Rick? You don't believe the Russians bombed four hospitals in Syria or do you think you actually did make threads about those hospitals Russia bombed?

You certainly went out of your way to paint the incident in Afghanistan in the most anti-American light possible even before all the information came in. Why the double standard, man?

Last I saw the Afghan Defense Minister said it was true.

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2015/1...says-taliban-used-bombed-hospital-as-shelter/

US Officers who were on the ground also say the official back in D.C. who said it was a mistake was in error and that the Taliban was indeed using the hospital as a shelter from air strikes thus violating the Geneva Convention.

Of course not. Ignoring that the Taliban was using the hospital for military purposes, that the Geneva Convention says this causes it to lose its protected status, and then inventing an anti-American conspiracy theory is something I object to though. Especially when he ignores far worse actual violations.

It reeks of bias.

In your opinion what would justify an airstrike on the hospital?