[SECURE AMERICA]

American Military Forces could certainly defeat Iranian forces and win a war there.
IF WE FOUGHT IT AS WE DID WW2. TO WIN. TO DESTROY THE ENEMY, THEIR CITIES, THEIR ABILITY TO WAGE WAR.
We stopped doing that once we went into Vietnam.

[yup2394871293]

What about N. Korea?

[ClearCase_guy]

People used to win wars by capturing the enemy's capitol. It was a little like chess.
Another good way to win a war was to bring the enemy army to a major encounter and to decisively beat that army. It was sort of good sportsmanship for the loser to recognize defeat.
In an age of Total War, you could win a war by firebombing cities, nuking cities, and by inflicting millions of causalities (men, women, children, civilian, combatants, whatever) on the other side. Make them cry for mercy and make them accept unconditional surrender. That approach seemed pretty effective.

In my lifetime, all of these approaches have been taken off the table. There seems to be no acceptable replacement, and we no longer have any real strategy for "winning" a war. We just fight until we lose the political will, then we come home.

We need to relearn what works: The old ways are the best ways.

[Dutch Boy]

You’ve got that right. Once we stopped fighting wars to win, we started having troubles. With Iran, the stated goal should be that we intend to break things and kill Iranian soldiers and terrorists. We should clearly state we will not be rebuilding Iran only destroying its military and nuclear capabilities. I would also add that we should take out every government palace, house, vacation spot where that nutjob goes.

[Evil Slayer]

If Harry Truman was President right now, he wouldn’t hesitate one second using nukes to take out Iran’s capability of destroying Israel. Harry was the key instrument in Israel being granted statehood in 1948. They say he was so overjoyed that tears flowed down his cheeks.

[Eleutheria5]

“Easily,” though? Maybe Granada was easy, but that’s a dangerous prognostication when it comes to wars.