This really sucks for humanity if it comes to that. I only hope whatever happens that this does not become WW3. Being here in the states I cannot tell you how many Evangelicals masturbate over the "end times" and the rapture.

And damn, we've already wasted tons of money on two wars we didn't win and China is loving us spinning our wheels while they rob us economically.

I'd say no ground troops and just knock em out with missiles ourselves if it comes to that. I'd also feel really bad for the Iranians who got squashed in their protests of their own government. I'd hate to think about any westernized sympathizer stuck there by virtue of simply being the citizen of the wrong country, would get caught up in our rightful counter attack to theocracy.

But Israel doesn't get a pass in this either. Since WW2 their leaders have done nothing but add to the war mongering tribal bullshit that both sides are guilty of.

I really don't want to see another war, but if Iran tries something, whatever we do has to be swift and decisive with consideration as to minimal chance of the conflict going global. It cannot get to that point because none of humanity will win at that point. We'd all be knocked back to the stone age.

              All this could have been avoided if that idiot Creator wasn't so keen on handing out major helpings of "Free Will™"  to emotionally unstable beings.  Well, too late now.

The US never learns.

Iran is bold and cocky because the US just finished wasting a decade and trillions of dollars and thousands of lives obliterating one of the only two local powers that was keeping them in check, and practically gave them control of that power to boot: Iraq. Now that the sunni's have lost power, the shia reign supreme.

The US consolidated moslem power in the region. Of course it will flex its new muscles.

I have no doubt that the US could accomplish that just as you say, but we aren't the only military power out there who can make things "disappear" via modern weaponry.   The former Soviet Union peddles its weapon systems to virtually anyone who can afford them and many of their weapons systems are sufficient for the task, to say the least.  

  To wit, the Russian Moskit anti ship missile ( rocket powered booster followed by ram jet powered cruise phase ) is a devastating ship killer whose high altitude speed is Mach 2.6 and whose low altitude speed is Mach 1.5.   At 10 km from it's target the time until impact is less than 20 seconds which provides precious little time for defensive countermeasures  ( ie, too fast even for fully automated Phalanx and Goal Keeper especially if the Moskits are fired in salvo)  Also, the Moskit's passive radar mode enables the missile to detect active jamming sources and use them for homing.  That and other features make it's radar seeker very ECM resistant.  Syria is already in possession of this weapon system.  Such highly refined weapons as this most certainly put our navy at serious risk, as well.

So yes, the US can still inflict serious damage but in oil rich countries all it takes is for them to write a seriously large check to any of the world's leading arms makers and the odds of the US making short work of it's opponents decreases significantly.  And after fighting so many wars in the Middle East I doubt the American public has much of a stomach for further enduring massive American casualties.

 I don't have any reason to doubt any of your observations but as far as asserting that the US has upgraded their own systems to counter enemy threats, well, don't our enemies employ the same approach to counter our upgrades ?  Hence the term "arms race' ?  Make no mistake, my loyalties are to the country of my birth but I have talked to many US veterans who are shockingly dismissive of our enemies abilities to keep abreast, and even surpass, our level of technology.

Lastly, the US in Viet Nam was technically overwhelmingly superior to anything the Vietnamese communists could throw at our military and now all we have to show for it is a black granite wall with the names of 58,000 dead American soldiers and the communists now possess all of Viet Nam.  The Soviets left Afghanistan where ( despite Stinger missiles ) they clearly held the upper hand in terms of technology.  In both cases the communists and the mujahideen found ways to counter conventional military might.  They both fought to their enemies weaknesses ( the national will to fight has its limits and they knew it ) and they prevailed over their superior enemies.

That's all I'm saying really.

America?  Learned OUR lesson?  I'd love to believe that, but it just wouldn't be true. 

Umm, we just nudged our way into their business.  If Lyndon wasn't a complete asshat, and McNamara not being so easily led by every little thing, then we would have never increased soldiers from 16,000 to around 400,000 by 1967.  We were there to support the French and train the Vietcong army, but when the French withdraw in 1954, we kept our occupation to a strict financial and military advisory stance only that is until the false-flag of The Gulf of Tonkin Incident where it was thought two of our destroyers were fired on by Vietnamese naval vessels.  There was no "right" side in Vietnam at all; it was a giant cluster fuck from the get-go and we had no business there in ANY sense.

The Soviet Union collapsed on it's own because they had a lot more to deal with than our bullshit.  The Cold War was just a dick waving contest and they probably would have posed a threat further down the road and been around today if it wasn't for some detrimental factors.  For example, they had their own "Vietnam" to deal with at the time, but for them, it was in Afghanistan.  Gorbachev got the Soviet Union into some deep shit really quick that the Communist party got really pissed with.  The final straw was Chernobyl where Gorbachev's perestroika and glasnost reforms gained more momentum and the disaster was just more motive to push them forward which ultimately led to the collapse.  It wasn't that America scared them to not attack; it's that they couldn't.  Their leaders, party confusions and existing skirmishes left them with little means to do anything about the U.S.  Iran isn't without means and they don't care how strong America is; you just have to look at Desert Storm or Operation: Iraqi Freedom to get a good idea on how much small countries give a shit about our "power." 

Haven't you heard?  I thought everyone heard.

"Ho Chi Minh is a son of a bitch.  Got the blue balls, crabs and the seven-year-itch."

If that didn't grab you, take a page out of Animal Mother's book on his take of Vietnam: 

"Freedom?  Pfft.  You'd better flush out your head, new guy. This isn't about freedom; this is a slaughter. If I'm gonna get my balls blown off for a word, my word is "poontang".

Then again, he also said that they were shooting the "wrong gooks," but let's not split hairs here...

Funny, since you've lost every war since Iraq 1. Including Iraq 2 and Afghanistan, both of which the US has now retreated from, and have not been made havens for democracy and peace. Maybe in 20 years when 9/11 has repeated itself 3 or 4 times the US will actually have learned its lesson.

Like the patriot? Complete write off. More missiles failed than were hit by patriots.
As is the missile shield you can't convince the Russians to buy into. Not everything that comes from the US military works.

                                                                                      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aNZpkimAZSI

                                           ( music vid "God Is A Bullet" from Concrete Blonde.        Sorry, I couldn't resist the irony )

Any submarines make surface sailors of any navy nervous.  They are very hard to detect even with modern sonar.  Usually the first indication of a hostile sub in your area is the sound of a torpedo heading toward your ship.  On top of this is the location of the damage.  Torpedoes hit below the water line, where if a missile hit the ship from a ground or air based source usually it does not.  Also we have several defense mechanisms to stop an above the water line incoming missile.  None of the defense mechanisms work against torpedoes.  You just take it.  And then you hope your damage control team can control the flooding while you try to destroy the sub that will continue firing more torpedoes at you.

By that logic either the seas belong to no one, or the seas belong to the Navy with the most submarines.

Guess which navy that is?

Russia!

1. I personally think the seas belong to no one. It holds no allegiance.

2. Don't like your logic now, huh?

Yup.  Either they want to live in a country where different sects can get along, and they can have peaceful relations wit their neighbors, or they don't.

What many civilians don't understand is that our enemies often throw everything they have into a conflict, and we still have many more toys in the toy box.  A problem with that strategy in Middle Eastern conflicts is that they view this as a sign of weakness -- that we can't or won't escalate beyond whatever level of force we're currently projecting.  Let's just say that they are sadly mistaken.

*sighs*  Why are you being so obtuse?  Is it deliberate?

The US Navy phrase, "The seas belong to us." means that the United States Navy can control any part of any sea it wants against any other naval force on the planet.

That's not so hard to understand is it?

Of course submarines make surface sailors nervous.  That's a universal.  But it doesn't mean a couple subs can take out one of our fleets.  We have subs too, and every one of our fleets deploy with several of them paroling around and beneath them.  Modern navies have developed several methods to detect and destroy submarines but they're sneaky little buggers.

Unless you are expecting it to appear at a certain time it will very likely catch you with your pants down.  And then people start dieing before they even know what happened.  Once one ship got hit though, the rest of the fleet would be on high alert and the submarine would have a much harder job to take out anyone else or survive if they try.

And the reason is simple.  Most of the time sonar operates in a passive mode.  It just listens for noises.  For the old diesel powered subs this works pretty well.  For nuclear subs though, it doesn't work so well.  They are too quiet.  However, if you are expecting a submarine in the area the sonar switches to active mode and starts sending out powerful pulses of sound.  It bounces this pulse off their hull and lights them up like a lightbulb to our sensors.

If you were in that sub you would hear that ping hit you.  It would sound like a giant with a sledgehammer just hit your hull.  That's when the submariners start pissing their pants.  Because our surface ships have torpedoes too.  Just for those little bastards.  We also have mines. 

The only problem is that the first ship that realizes a hostile sub is around is very likely to not make it with a lot of it's crew dead.  No one wants to be on that first ship.

As in failing to complete the objectives laid out, such as bringing peace, democracy, and stability to the region. As in removing the taliban and ending the threat of terrorism. Should I go on?

Also, your source is bs. I've read the reports that proved most patriot missiles couldn't hit anything but the ground, and the only reason Kuwait wasn't reduced to rubble was because Iraq was sold substandard equipment that didn't live up to expectations.
But history revision and promotion of failed military supplies was always an American past time. Like forgetting that you had almost nothing to do with the world wars, that Britain and the colony of Canada kicked your ass and burned down your white house, or that the taliban made a reasonable demand for proof that was never satisfied and that for decades the US government has promoted a missile shield that dozens of studies have shown would be as effective, or less, as shooting at missiles with guns.

He's just saying that the USN is, by far, the most powerful Navy. No other force could effectively compete with it. When he says the seas "belong" to some party, he just means that they are the strongest group and try to police it. Don't see anything to argue about there.

Eh, don't know how close is "off," but I'm pretty sure the USN already parks its fleets near the coasts of most if not all other "superpowers."  

If we move into a territory of water we can control it.  That means the sea belongs to us.  One or two ships being lost to enemy subs does not mean the United States Navy can not control a sea.

We would easily be victorious against anyone that tried to challenge us.

And take your pussy ass pacifist whining and park it at your nearest gynecologist office.  I don't really care what little girls like you think of your country's military that gives you your freedoms.

Peace and democracy to those desert dwelling troglodytes?  Yes, it seems we did overestimate the arabs.  They only know how to be blood thirsty tribes.

We did remove the Taliban.  They are no longer in control of Afghanistan.  Oh, sure some raghead are running around living in caves calling themselves by that name.  Big whoop.

And ending the threat of terrorism is ridiculous.  The world will never be free of terrorism.

Did the report also mention that Iraq was firing those SCUDs at Saudi Arabia and Israel, not Kuwait?  Apparently not.  Anyway, yes I know that the controversy of their effectiveness is still in contention even today.  So what?  America is much better at blowing somebody up rather than protecting somebody from getting blown up.

We have specialized in the former.

Maybe Canada can specialize in defense since it's full of hippies.

You're the one that started with the insults.  So roll with it.

You are making a big logical mistake here, lad.  Don't insult the military because politicians order them to do things in defense of their country's interests.

The US Military did not decide to invade Afghanistan or Iraq.  We were ordered to do it.  When you're in the military you obey every lawful order you are given.

I don't want to see us have to attack Iran.  I hope they are reasonable for once.

But if they are not reasonable our military is going to fuck them up.  And no one is going to stop us.

This is the exact insult that you started with.

There you go.  Apparently, according to you, by stating the facts of American military might I am a prick waving, self-contradicting, hyperbole spewing veteran.

The fact is you're living in a fantasy land.  Everyone bemoaning all this bloodshed going on over there.

We didn't just throw a dart and decide to attack whatever country it landed on.

We wouldn't have invaded Afghanistan if over 3000 of our civilians didn't die screaming being burned to death, crushed to death, or jumping out of high rise buildings.  Even after that we wouldn't have invaded if Afghanistan had handed over the culprits.  They allowed this to happen.  They decided to be obstinate.  So we invaded.

Was Iraq a mistake?   Apparently it was.  We should have left good ol' Saddam in power to continue to slaughter Iraqi citizen men, women, and chilren for several more decades.  Then all the peace loving people the world over would be perfectly content.  Wouldn't they?

A peaceful planet with no war is a nice dream.  But that's all it is.

It's a dream.  We're never going to stop killing each other.  But compared to a hell of a lot of places the West is remarkably orderly and civilized.  Not like the Muslim countries where sectarian violence kills people of all ages and genders on a frequent basis.  Where people are executed because they are born being homosexuals.  Where you can be killed or imprisoned for life for blasphemy.

We can't remain as a sovereign, orderly, relatively peaceful society without a strong military to defend our society.

We can't.  So when some old fart on Capitol Hill tells our young men and women in uniform that their country needs them and orders them out to kill and die for their country don't belittle or insult those people.

Fucking write your congressman.  Vote.  But back off the people following orders and doing what their country asks of them.

You don't want to be accused of prick-waving? Stop waving your prick.

I do believe you were the one who started that by "These guys have to back down or they are going to get seriously messed up." and "It will take the US about 2 hours to sink their entire navy and set half their coastline into a conflagration."

If you don't want war - don't sound like such a bad ass about it. It sends the wrong message.

And if you recall, I told you to count me in with the "pussy pacifists". Oh horrors! I was so insulted I agreed to join them.

complexity of involvement in Iraq/Vietnam is entirely mitigated in this sort of zero sum confrontation. Here, there is no need to create civil alliances. In such cases it's much more cut and dried and Iran's ability to wage war and its industrial engine would be utterly plastered in the first week.

This said, I think the grandstanding we see in Iran relates more to domestic politics and seems to be a game of oneupmanship the government plays against the all-powerful clergy. Nor can I imagine the 'West' (read stable nations that are no longer restricted to an arbitrary geographic location) would want to torment Iran's civvies and unit them behind such a fucked government. 

The nations of the middle east should be allowed to shake themselves apart without interference, without dilution. They have to go through what Europeans went through in the 16th and 17th centuries. They have to want moderation, civil rights and a separation of church and state so badly that a majority of ordinary people are prepared to personally die for it. 

And every one of them that do have forces in their territory either agreed to or even asked for such.
There's no denying America is the leader in armed forces globally. But a significant amount of the power the US wields comes from allies, and their sharing of resources and ALLOWANCE of US military presence in their territory. The US doesn't own the world, and could be ejected from many territories they have forces in simply by the host nation deciding they weren't wanted anymore.

No, you didn't. They've reclaimed a significant portion of Afghanistan.

You're misinformed.  economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics/nation/ten-years-on-who-are-the-taliban-today/articleshow/10313980.cms

So, yeah, Afghanistan is still occupied heavily by various Al-Qaeda militant cells and possesses huge pockets of Taliban groups.  Whatever you heard is just the news trying to fuck with you saying they're not a threat or that they're gone.