[RN7]

A fair point but considering the difficulty the U.S. had in supplying its troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, I'm not sure that supplying a substantial miltiary force across the world's largest ocean would be as simple as you've implied.

Well in the case of Iraq and Afghanistan it world be two Oceans from the West Coast, and they have to supply the troops in the rest of Asian and Europe as well. I never said it world be simple but the US can do it far better than anyone else.

I didn't miss anything. The '91 army was essentially the pinnacle of the Cold War army- the army built to take on the Soviets in a tank war in central Europe. The 2003 army was a slimmed down, lean and mean version of the same and the Iraqi armed forces were a shell of their '91 selves. Considering that the Iraqis had lost the bulk of their better armor (not saying much) and nearly their entire airforce during '91, the relatively easy victory in 2003 doesn't really prove a whole lot.

But it still was a conventional war was it not?

Does the U.S. military today have the same number of tanks, aircraft, and ships that it did in '91? No.

No, but neither does anyone else.

You make my point for me. If the much more advanced U.S. military can't defeat a third-world insurgent army after 9 years, how could it defeat the world's most populous nation?

The fighting is largely conventional the war is not. A war against China which you seem to be banging on about is never going to lead to a US invasion because the US has no reason to invade China.

Classy. Show me where

" And you are claiming that the U.S can defeat a country of 1.3 billion people, with the world's largest military, fighting on home soil (or close to it)? You are failing to see the forrest for the trees."

Your words not mine.

Your whole argument is that the Chinese are not a match for the U.S. military, is it not?

Yes.

You can't have it both ways.

How do you mean? I have argued that the Chinese are no match for US forces, and I think they are not. You are the one who brought up the US invading China not me, as you seem to think that any hypotethical conventional war between the US and China is going to lead to a US invasion of China.

You've raised some valid points and presented some compelling arguments. You've also made some pretty outlandish and unsubstantiated claims. I'd love to continue this debate but if you're going to be childish then forget it.

What outlandish and unsubstantiated claims have I made, when have I been childish and when have I insulted you?