I have a serious question...

[Big Dad]

Originally Posted by MarineHawk

Right. The big difference from past foes is the asymetrical character of the order of battle now. By way of comparison, it took all the might of the U.S., Russia, France, and Britain and 20 million dead to take down the Kaiser in 1918--though Russia collapsed and we entered late.

It took all the might of most of the world's industrialized powers, minus the Krauts, Wops, and Japs, to take down the Axis in WWII at a cost of 55 million dead (we lost about 400,000 dead).

During the 45-year Cold War, we faced the constant threat of immediate attack by thousands of ICBMs containing tens of thousands of megatons of nuclear explosives--possibly enough to kill every living thing in North America (even the Canadians; note that they are very hardy creatures, much like the cockroaches who survived the great meteor impact that destroyed the dinosaurs 60 million years ago, but even the Canadians might not survive a full ICBM strike by the Kremlin).

We still have the possibility of a a nuclear strike, but on a much, much smaller scale. Much of the Russian arsenal is out of action (it costs many $billions to keep a large arsenal maintained and functional; only we can, and do, afford that). India and Pakistan don't have any reliable way to deliver nukes to Omaha. China can deliver some accross the Pacific, but not like the thousands the USSR could. North Korea is not a nuclear threat at this time. Trust me.

Keep in mind that, unlike the foes we have faced in the past, who it us took years and hundreds of thousands of American dead died to defeat (it would have cost many millions of American lives taking down the USSR militarily), with our nuclear arsenal, we can kill every living creature in the Middle East in a few minutes with the push of a few buttons.

Never forget that. The menace we face is annoying and threatening. It has harrassed us and knocked some buildings down. It must be dealt with. But it can't threaten us with annihilation like past foes could. If they blow up something big here, we know, and they know, we can kill every one of them in short order. We didn't have that option with Germany (twice) or with the USSR. China may be a military threat in a couple of decades, but they're still quite a ways off in that regard.

"I like the way you talk (type) mhmmm" and the fact that you go back to the "Great War" trench warfare. You should have brought up the fact that the Germans and the Brits actually were humane enough to have the Christmas truce in the trenches, share food and drink, and play football. And, then, resume the battle. I think that it illustrates a sobering reality in contrast to the enemy of today.

As far as Iran is concerned...and I would compare Iran with the Nat, on your ass, while taking a well-deserved $hit, at the end, of a successful moose hunt. You just don't want to get any on your hands once you deep six it. I'm also a DS vet...the only thing I might differ from you is that we should have gone all the way to Baghdad the first time. The older I get the more it pisses me off. But, then that's the congress....

[MarineHawk]

Originally Posted by Big Dad

...the only thing I might differ from you is that we should have gone all the way to Baghdad the first time....

We don't differ on that at all. At the end of Feb., I was thinking: WTF? Why stop? We own these bitches now! Why let them regroup?
That being said, hindsight is 20/20, and I thought at the time that Sodomer was too weakened at that point to survive in power. I was wrong.

By way of edit: While I agree that we should have driven to undefended Baghdad in 1991, the lefties who, only recently, make this criticism, are pure opportinists. No Dem or lefty in Feb/March 1991 was saying "attack, continue the attack." Pure BS on their part.

[MarineHawk]

Originally Posted by Big Dad

As far as Iran is concerned...and I would compare Iran with the Nat, on your ass, while taking a well-deserved $hit, at the end, of a successful moose hunt. You just don't want to get any on your hands once you deep six it. ....

There are reasons why we need to give them a beat down fairly soon if the govt' doesn't collapse (not because we need to wait until we have to be reactive, but basically out of need to maintain an effective psychological deterence), but I agree Iran's in trouble (economy collapsing; tremendous dissent) and far from able to harm us in any direct way. They're slightly more dangerous to Europe because they might actually be able to land in missle in Paris or Munich--not New York. That's why the French via Sarkozy are starting to demand that Iran be checked, militarily if necessary. If Iran did anything to us, it could not be severe, and, again, we could simply delete them from the map in minutes if they did so.

[Big Dad]

Originally Posted by MarineHawk

There are reasons why we need to give them a beat down fairly soon if the govt' doesn't collapse (not because we need to wait until we have to be reactive, but basically out of need to maintain an effective psychological deterence), but I agree Iran's in trouble (economy collapsing; tremendous dissent) and far from able to harm us in any direct way. They're slightly more dangerous to Europe because they might actually be able to land in missle in Paris or Munich--not New York. That's why the French via Sarkozy are starting to demand that Iran be checked, militarily if necessary. If Iran did anything to us, it could not be severe, and, again, we could simply delete them from the map in minutes if they did so.

Absofrickenlutely! I figure it'll take a missile ending up in Europe somewhere...we could throw our hat in the ring, AGAIN, and keep the American casualties to a minimum by making a glass parking lot out of Iran and just divvy up the oil. Little bit of wishful thinking.