Comments by "VisibilityFoggy" (@VisibilityFoggy) on "Can Iran Stop the US? A look at Irans Defenses" video.

Did the U.S. ever actually achieve true air superiority over the entirety of Vietnam? Not really. And if you analyze that statement, it tells you that air superiority is a requirement to win – not a guarantee that you will not lose. Vietnam largely turned into a war of attrition due to the influx of Soviet weaponry. The Soviets experienced the same in Afghanistan due to an influx of American weaponry. Russia is great at military PR these days, but not so great at exporting their high-maintenance weapons systems and keeping them operational in combat. I'm not advocating an all-out war with Iran (or even overthrowing the Ayatollah) but the constant comparisons to Vietnam every time a potential conflict is discussed is silly. A repeat of Praying Mantis, along with taking out a few SAM batteries, would likely do the trick.
43
@manictiger - I wouldn't call it a "loss" as much as I'd call it a "no win." The objective was not achieved, but there was no political will for it to be achieved. I believe the U.S. military could have achieved the objective, however it would have involved more personnel, more money and potentially the use of tactical nuclear standoff weaponry. There's a point at which the desire to fight another country's war becomes lost – not to mention the fact that many of the people fighting didn't want to be there in the first place and were thrust into the conflict via the draft. A professional military will almost always be superior to a conscripted military, perhaps with the exception of an outright defense of the homeland as with Russia in WWII. In the (essentially impossible) scenario that the U.S. was invaded, it's not out of the question that American civilians, on their own, could defeat the militaries of many countries around the world.
16
Hmm, except this time the evil, war-mongering Republican (Trump) resisted the urge to kill even his adversaries in Iran, unlike the good social justice warrior Democrat (LBJ) who sacrificed 53,000 American lives. Weird, huh?
6
Everyone I know who has visited the region has told me that the Iranian people they met were very welcoming, friendly and actually loved America and its pop culture, etc. There are always going to be some radical nationalists, but for the most part people want to live their lives and be kind to others. I doubt the majority of Iranians enjoy being under the thumb of an 80-year-old dictator who seems hell-bent on blowing up ships, firing off missiles and playing chicken with the world's largest military.
2
@erickamckinney2980 - You are officially the first person I've ever heard argue that Nazi Germany won World War II.
2
@russellmellott452 - You are officially the first Shia Muslim I've ever known named "Russell." So that's interesting, at least.
1
@erickamckinney2980 - I'm not arguing the point. Actually, I agree with you when it comes to Vietnam, though your WWII comment was, err, weird. Vietnam was the result of several administrations all going in different policy directions – a problem that exists to this day in U.S. foreign policy. But boiling an entire conflict down to win/loss when the conflict was never seen through to its resolution and all assets were not utilized just doesn't make sense.
1
@carson2725 - I disagree, somewhat. I think the U.S. populace would have the will to support a prolonged conflict in a more traditional war – ie. an attack on Pearl Harbor scenario. What people have become sick of are wars that, even in victory, do not provide material benefit to America. Look back to the old adage, "To the victor goes the spoils." What spoils did we get from overthrowing Saddam Hussein? That said, protecting international shipping and commerce is a different story. If Iran continues bombing ships and firing missiles, there is a need for military action to ensure world peace and the safe transit of international waters and airspace. I don't think Americans would find that unreasonable, but at the same time there is also a press that is openly hostile to president which will slant their coverage no matter what decision he makes. Time to put on our thinking caps and turn off the TV. ;)
1