"Iran has not gone "head-to-head" with the US. The US has the military capability to level Iran if it chose to fully unleash it."
Sure. We could nuke the ---- out of Iran, but we could do that to any country.
The US could have, um succeeded, but that would first require a theory of victory. A set of objectives. From there, you would determine how to achieve those objectives. Normally, you do that by holding something your adversary values at risk. In Iran, I would say that would most likely be the coastal areas, ports, and oil production facilities.
That never happened. OEF has been the biggest strategic defeat in the history of the United States. I have no idea what objectives the DoW established prior to the conflict, but unless the objective was to burn through thousands of critical munitions, those objectives have not been achieved. And unless the US is willing to deploy a massive ground force, the Iranian victory will stand. More cruise missiles will not do anything to change Iran's decision calculus. They've already won.
#42
I'm in Norway a lot. If you take a cab, or go to a grocery store, it's probably an East African you're going to be dealing with. Norway lacks the people necessary to meet the demands of society, so they have no choice but to import them.
I'm not sure why immigrants immediately want to choose the US over other countries. Ignorance, maybe. Maybe it's the perception that you can sit in the US and collect money without doing anything. I don't know. But the Somalis driving cabs in Bodo went from a scorching desert to a rainy, wind cold city north of the Arctic Circle. Good for them.
And I don't think the Norgies, especially the old school Vikings up north, would tolerate a lack of assimilation. I've not seen it nor heard of it.