A population of 90 million people is irrelevant to the question of military capability. It is absolutely relevant to a discussion about the insurgency and guerilla warfare that would inevitably follow the conventional war, but I think you and I already agree that there’s no way for the U.S. to win that (nor should we try).

But I don’t think the bits of relatively small damage Iran has done to U.S. forces in the region is convincing evidence that they’re capable of taking on the full brunt of U.S. capabilities, even without going nuclear. Launch enough drones and missiles and a few will inevitably get through. But we’ve also been using our own drones for more than 20 years now, longer than most other countries. Most importantly though, we have significantly more resources poured into everything that would follow the drones in a full-scale invasion.

And just to reiterate: I don’t think any of this is a good idea, and I don’t support any of it. But when you’re talking about the significance of damage and casualties caused by Iran, you can’t ignore the fact that the U.S. is holding back so far.

Your description of the differences between Iraq and Iran is good, as well as your explanation of the current situation.

However, it would change significantly if the U.S. decided to stop half-assing it. If the douchebags running the show decide they want to commit to a full-scale invasion with all available assets, I think you’d see a situation more similar to Iraq. We could absolutely roll Iran’s formal military if we committed to it.

But the subsequent occupation and attempt to maintain control would be doomed to the same failures as Iraq, Afghanistan, and all those before it, but on an even larger scale. All forward progress would stop once the Iranian military’s command and control falls. There’s no way we could win the asymmetric warfare that would follow, and I’m not at all saying we should even try. It’s all a pointless pile of shit that never should have been started.

Eww, no. Gross.

My gyno jerks off my cows like a civilized person.

How often do you see or hear “male” used without any of the descriptors attached in casual contexts?

Describing guys with bullshit Greek-derived “personality type” adjectives still at least acknowledges they are human with some kind of personality, even if you’re using one of the negative ones. And a few of them are even considered positive descriptors.

But the common use of the word “female” in informal contexts, without any other descriptors attached, does exactly what the article author says it does and isn’t nearly as pervasive for men or boys.

Its most likely just a front-end for one of the command line tools anyway, so you’re probably still using them.

And if it’s the easiest way to get what you need, then it sounds like you’re using the right tool for your use case. That’s a good thing.