Where in the world are you getting those numbers from?

The Airforce alone has over 2,000 fighters and 5,000 total planes   (Each branch of the armed forces has their own planes and there is much more then fighters that have offensive capabilties.)

Aside from which... F22.

From FlightGlobal 2010 report: http://www.flightglobal.com/airspace/media/reports_pdf/world-air-forces-2010-78877.aspx

They have 160 F22, that's ~5%, but the bulk is still made up of F15/F16/A10 for the air force and F18 for the navy, that is 87% of the total.

they continue to threaten cyprus as well, so its not just israel.

No it's the oil & gas that sit on the bottom of the sea between Cyprus and Israel.

pretty sure they werent threatening the oil...

Yeah that's what Hitler though when he launched Barbarosa and and before Hitler, it was Napoleon. I think USA would harm Russia a lot, but they wouldn't defeat it (enter moscow). USA would have more succes on Russian soil than russians would on american. I believe whichever country would be defensive would win. I mean, USA  wasn't very successful against poor equipped Viet Cong, I doubt they would be much more successful against much much MUCH better equipped russians

Actually, the US was EXTREMELY successful vs the viet cong.

It was something like a 3 to 1 casaulty ratio despite the fact that the US decided to fight a nearly fully defensive war and that we were supporting an ally that had numerous NLF supporters in it.

It would of been the equilvent of Iraq.... if instead of taking out Sadam Hussein, the US only took half the country, and refused to invade the second half.

Except, not even that bad, since the US armed forces is a lot larger then it was pre-draft.

The US could likely "take over" Russia, now holding it after the war was one... that's a different story.

So going by that logic, Germany was very succesfull against Soviets because they brought them up much hihger casualties. Hell, Axis crushed allies if we take casualties into consideration.  The thing is, the number of casualties doesnt determain whos sucesfull and who lost. The end result determains that. And the end result was - Soviets defeated Germans and destroyed their capital. Just like the end result is -  US army retreats and communist Viet Cong wins the war.

And just for referance, I only brought up Russia becuse its most close to US in military power

Sure, that's all that matters... if you don't actually care about extrapolating the results of a war forward to future events. 

However, that's exactly what you're trying to do.

To use an exagerated scenario to show the silliness of your point...

If the US were to declare war on Russia today, send one expiermental fighter to russia, destroy 1,000 russian fighters before that one fighter crash landed due to mechanical failures, then the US surrendered... the US would of lost that war. 

To suggest that was proof the US had "No success" vs russia and would lose a war, despite the US rolling out 500 of those fighters next week is the epitome of sillliness however.

There is zero chance the US would fight a war in Russia like they did a war in vietnam.

Hey man, people from the future would look back and only see the final result of the war. Now it doesnt matter if US destroyed 100000 of russian fighters, if the russians won at the end, or Americans failed to achieve their goal (whatever that might would be). I said in my post that US would more likely to bring higher casualties to Russia than vice versa, but none of that would matter if they would lose a war at the end. I also never denied that US would more likely to get off easier if the war were to happen. I am just arguing that the casualties dont decide the winner, the end result does.

As for your last sentence, that would depend on where the war is happening, why the war is happening, what are the goals of each sides, and on what scale is war being fought.