Oil (prior to the current pointless war) was pretty cheap, though. Adjusted inflation cheaper than e.g. it was at any point between 1975 and 85.

Tolkien was exceptional and dedicated his entire life to it. 99.99+% of all people do not possess such a combination of talent and focus and therefore end up having to use “shortcuts”.

Lack of freedom speech in the largest (remaining) democratic country in the western world seems concerning?

You're confusing "freedom and speech" and democracy. They're not the same. You cannot even give someone the middle finger in Germany.

> showing the middle finger (Stinkefinger) is illegal in Germany and considered a criminal offense under Section 185 of the Criminal Code (StGB). Known as an insult (Beleidigung), this gesture can lead to fines, or in severe cases, up to a year in prison.

It is a "probe".

When I report to the police UFO landed in my backyard and I feel my life is threatened, the police are obliged to probe into it. Not that anything may come out of it.

Freedom of speech does not automatically allow insults. Now whether "Lick balls" towards a state leader is an insult or is allowed criticism is probably debatable, but this is what courts are for.

American freedom of speech unconditionally allows insults. In Germany they have freedom of opinion - you can think, but you can't say. How generous of them to not make thoughtcrimes.

This is basically bullshit.

First of all - most people also in the US obviously don't know that there are exceptions from the First Amendment, excluding certain categories of speech from protection. Second, the First Amendment at the time it was created had a much more limiting interpretation of this freedom - e.g. insults were actually punishable.

Additionally - freedom of speech has never been absolute - it was limited in Ancient Greece, where it originated, it was limited as it was declared in the French Revolution (which was used as the template for the First Amendment), and in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights - which provides the internationally valid definition of freedom of speech, its scope is also limited.

As opposed to the US, in Germany, the legal system is built consistently from the most generally valid principles to the most specific ones. The most universally valid principle is the one of the human dignity - this is why it's prominently placed in the first sentence of the German Basic/Fundamental Law. Everything else is more or less directly derived from the First Law, making them subordinate to it - thus if freedom of speech violates someone's dignity, the dignity is more important and has to take precedence, limiting the freedom of speech.

And this is consistent and concordant with the international definition.

By using the actual legal and official name of the department (which Trump didn’t and couldn’t change)?

> Fleeing is seen as dishonorable

Tell that to the soldiers in the famously almost universally ineffective militaries of almost all the countries in the Arab world.

The US has a constitution as well? It seems pretty worthless these days since nobody is willing to enforce it..

You are implying that Trump is rational and/or the interests of his administration align with those of the country?

I am making no implications of Trump, very on purpose to keep this in point (it's hard), but explicitly stating that the policies of the United States are based on capitalism and always have been, while the narrative given and received is that of humanitarianism, which in my opinion is a side effect only. In this case hopefully a positive one, hence my concern for the reckless nature of the war (let's just call it what it is, not just an attack or military action).

> In 1953, Iran was a secular and democratic

That glosses over a huge amount of details. Calling it democratic is a huge stretch.

> They had elected a prime minister

The election of 1952 were rigged (seemingly by both sides) and not free at all. The vote was even stopped early and almost half the seats left empty.

Mosaddegh was also already in power (being appointed by the Shah) before these “democratic” elections and his reforms were already underway.

This also includes indirect deaths?

But if you add up the Iraq-Iran war and all his domestic atrocities it’s not that far (and these are only direct casualties).

US is not at war with Iran. Only the Congress has the right to declare war.

Ok, call it a "special military operation" if you want. A war by any other name would smell just as bad.

And what is Congress - or any other part of the US government - going to do about the pedophile not following rules? Stop him? How? Every potential check and balance has either been defanged or is controlled by his supporters.

Probably nothing. Also it’s not like the Democrats have much moral high ground to stand on here either (considering that Obama did more or less the same thing several times).

But congress can of course stop Trump from doing this and a whole bunch of other stuff. The problem is that it just chose not to and to give up much of its powers to the executive over the years (in practice if not legally) due to partisan reasons..

Why can't you be at war without officially declaring it? We have had lots of wars not declared by congress. Korean War, Vietnam, the Gulf War, Afghanistan, Iraq. This seems like a weird way to think.

Explicit authorization is still required even if there there is no explicit declaration of war.

The caveat being that the president only needs to get the approval of congress after 60 days.

And of course Obama established a precedent with his intervention in Libya which weakened this even more…

Being required legally doesn't change the actual fact of war. Sure it is breaking the law. I don't see how Libya is the one in the long list to set this precedent of illegally non-declared war.