here is of course a tiny little difference here. islam claims the whole world as it's territory
So does Christianity.
As for your idea of non-deistic ideologies... they've not exactly provided us with peace either.
That's a false dichotomy. Theism is the cause of the violence of Christianity; non-theism is simply all the other ideologies, which have nothing in common other than not being theistic (and deism is something else entirely; look it up). Furthermore, peace without liberty is insufficient. Catholicism and socialism both managed to deliver peace at times, but at a staggering cost in liberty and human development.
Communism comes to mind as an obvious example. All sorts of dictatorial idelogies, of course. What else do we have ? Socialism has not exactly been peaceful,
Communism, fascism, and socialism are very similar to Christianity (so similar, in fact, that American conservatives keep accusing European nations run by conservative Christians as being "socialist").
So do tell, which ideology, preferably one that has actually run a state (ie. isn't totally in the realm of fantasy), would you suggest ?
The US seems to have been doing pretty well with classical liberalism, and we should stick to that. That means keeping church and state separate, minimizing government services and the welfare state, keeping taxes low, promoting free trade and free markets, protecting free speech, and letting people do what they want with their lives as long as they aren't demonstrably harming others. It means rejecting the theocratic tendencies of the Republicans and the socialist tendencies of the Democrats.
Within such a liberal state, if you want to spend your time talking to an evil, genocidal sky-god like YHWE, that's your own business, as long as you don't put your theories into practice and start harming others.
Really? Where does it say that? You have to become a YouTube partner, which is quite restrictive and involves revenue sharing (i.e., you have to be popular enough to share revenue).
I wanted to put some open source howto videos online and basically got a reply that I shouldn't bother them again until I was at least as popular as a talking dog or vomiting kitten video.
As having access to more material but when HR and others passover people who use the new stuff and go with people who use traditional college system.
That's because a lot of people go to the "traditional college system". They don't necessarily learn more, but they have been preselected and they have made a huge financial commitment, both of which makes them "better" employees in some sense.
The root cause of that is the drive to push more and more people into college even though they won't need it for their professions, and to finance this insanity with loans.
Name them. And when you do, be sure to exclude any reasons that would appear hypocritical - those which could as easily apply to the US or its allies.
Iran is a repressive theocracy that has made the destruction of other nations and religions their declared goal. I'd likely be killed by the regime if I lived there. There is no comparison or analogy between what Iran can do and what the US can do. Of course, I want the US to have nuclear weapons, I want the CIA to be able to hunt down people like bin Laden, and I want the US military to have spy drones and satellites watching the rest of the world. And I decidedly do not want Iran to be able to do any of those things, and if they try, I want the US to intervene. I am pretty sure the majority of American voters feel the same way (even if we think the US should use these tools more judiciously). If you think that's "hypocritical"... well, you'll just have to live with that.
As far as I can tell, Muslim and Jewish claims are equally nutty. According to the Bible, Israel took that land because God told them so and exterminated the people who were living there before.
The flaw isn't with Islam, it's with the Abrahamic religions in genera. If you want to ennoble people and help them restrain their violent urges, you need religions and philosophies that are not based on the premise that whatever a powerful God tells you (told by his priesthood or dreamed up during prayer) is just, right, and moral.
Really? You do seem to ignore the fact that Anglo-Iranian lost it's oil monopoly and was forced into a joint venture with amongst others Gulf Oil, Socony-Mobil, Esso, Standard Oil of California, and Texaco after the coup?
I'm not ignoring that at all. I'm merely saying that this wasn't the initial motivation or cause. The US motivation was to answer a call for help, and the cause was UK foreign ownership of Iranian oil.
Please explain which trouble spots are caused by European Socialism.
Just about every place in the world that's run by socialist or communist governments, since they all are based on socialism, an ideology that originated in Europe.
The EU has a combined military budget of appx. 300 billion USD. That is about the same amount as the combined budgets of China, Russia, Japan, Saudi Arabia, India and Brazil together. Europe can defend itself just fine.
You obviously haven't been paying much attention to what happened in Libya or Afghanistan.
It takes a whiny and ignorant American to pretend otherwise.
Europe is more than welcome to leave NATO and ask US troops to leave any time.
Really? You sure sound like someone that watches Fox a lot.
No, I don't. I probably have about the same reaction to Fox news as you do. But that doesn't mean that I have any more respect for your position. I think you and European intellectuals like you are the perfect counterpart to Fox and their ilk: you are just as ignorant of history and just as elitist and distrustful of democracy and liberty.
Banana republics don't work either as last century politics of some countries showed. For some reason USA don't have lots of friends in own continent.
The US didn't create banana republics, they were already there. But if it has to choose, it will choose banana republics that are friendly to its own interests.
And if you think that Europe is such a happy place where everybody loves each other, you haven't been paying attention to Europe's history since WWII or its current state.
Since when Middle East is only Europe's problem.
Much of of the trade of the Middle East is with Europe and Asia, and Europe is within reach of Middle Eastern missiles.
Your country started two wars against independent countries and now you expect others to foot your overextended military budget.
Yes, we do. And European politicians are paying because they know that it's in their own interest to have the US take care of these dirty jobs. Personally, I think it's a bad deal for the US. I want the US to cut its military budget and let Europeans fight these wars themselves.
Yes, mostly because Europe destroyed itself, its militaries and governments, and its colonies in an orgy of religious and ethnic hatred and violence, followed by half a century of an equally destructive cold war based on yet more twisted European ideologies. And the US was pretty much the only nation trying to stand up to that. And since the fall of the Iron Curtain, the US has mostly been concerned with radical Islam and terrorism.
Extending these examples into modern times, I think that Iraq and the 'stans (Caspian oil pipeline) are now relatively safer places for American / Global Oil and Bank Interests.
Yes, that is clearly the point of most of these wars: to ensure that energy companies and banks have access to these countries. Why do you think that's a bad thing? Europe needs the gas and oil, and those countries need political stability, technologies, investment, and credit. What alternatives do you suggest?
Given Israel's stated policies, Israel having nukes is a threat to Iran, most of Islamic world and Europe AND indirectly — the US. Iran's possession of nukes is a warranty of a zero sum game, otherwise known as M.A.D.
Well, given that analysis, you seem to agree then that it comes down to a cost/benefit analysis, not a question of rights. And while you may disagree with the cost/benefit calculation the US government makes vis-a-vis Israel and Iran, I think they are probably better at it than you or I. FWIW, I think US policies towards these nations is mostly right (pressure Iran, befriend Israel), but we should probably gradually reduce our level of involvement overall.
I never said the United States is engaging in imperialism: I was comparing what our government does to the old British imperialism, where they made everyone else's business their own
But the analogy is a bad one. British imperialism just didn't work in the long run for anybody. But US military intervention has worked in the past and benefited both the US and the foreign nation.
Regardless of the reason for the U.S. doing what it does, I believe it is wrong.
"Wrong" is a moral judgment. I don't see anything "wrong" with intervening against undemocratic regimes.
Not only does our government install puppets around the globe (generally with spectacular failures), they do so at great cost to the taxpayers (of which I am one).
But that's just not true. US intervention has often succeeded in liberating nations and turning them into prosperous trading partners, often liberating them in the process. US and European prosperity and security has depended on this system, in particular during the Cold War. If we had pulled back after WWII, the rest of the world would largely be communist and fascist, and both we and the rest of the world would be much poorer and less developed.
We should pull back and bring a lot of our military home. We should also get Europe to do more of its own dirty work. But isolationism isn't the answer because we know it doesn't work.
Yeah right, it was just Britain, all on their own.
Iran was about British oil--specificaly, a company called "BP", as in "British Petroleum"--not US oil, period. To claim that US oil interests were the cause of US intervention in Iran is just ridiculous.
Kermit Roosevelt was just there on vacation or something.
Well, I'm glad you are familiar with at least a little bit of ME history. Now read a bit more: the US intervened on behalf of, and on request of, Great Britain because Britain claimed that Iran was being taken over by the Soviets and because Britain was busy trying to keep its failing colonial empire together.
And "intervention" amounted to little more than organizing a protest; the Iranian government was on its last leg anyway.
Stop watching FOX.
I don't watch Fox. But you obviously should stop listening to European neo-Marxist propaganda.
Fact is, most of the trouble spots in the world are the result of European fascism, European colonialism and European socialism. The US is trying its best to keep things running, but Americans and American tax payers are running out of patience. If Europe doesn't like the way it's going, Europe should pay for its own damned military.
Justification for obliterating a country on the opposite side of the planet?
There is no justification for "obliterating countries", but there can be for military action on the opposite side of the planet. Among other things, the US has allies and international commitments.
This includes imperialism and the fact that the British empire had its nose in too many places, including the colonies.
US military action isn't driven by "imperialism"; imperialism doesn't work, as Britain and France showed. The US is trying to convert other nations into trading partners with compatible economies and governments. That may or may not be a reasonable thing to do, but it is not "imperialism".
ever since WW2, has been too eager to pass
Unfortunately, you're still seeing the aftermath of WWII, with Europe politely refraining from military action and the US taking over Europe's protection and security needs. That should end.
I think unless we have a country invading or attacking U.S. soil, we need to avoid war at all costs.
And I tend to agree. But while you seem to think that we should refrain for moral and legal reasons, I just view it as a matter of utility: the low probability of democratizing and liberalizing Iran, Iraq and Afghanistan and the limited economic benefit to us doesn't justify the high human and financial cost. Furthermore, the Middle East should be Europe's financial and military responsibilitiy, not ours.
Technically, I suppose you are right. In practice, Iran's policies and threats have contributed to wars in the region. Don't get me wrong: I think we should stay out of Iran, but we should continue sanctions.
(As for your Fox comment, stop being such a jerk.)
That's where everyone should stop reading this drivel. Oh, FYI Jews have nukes. Pakistan has nukes.
So? Because little Johnny has nuclear weapons, little Jack has a right to have them too? This isn't about rights, it's about threats.
The fact that Israel has nuclear weapons isn't a threat to the US or US allies. Hence, it doesn't concern us much. Given Iran's stated policies, Iranian nuclear weapons are a threat to the US and US allies.
There are many references claiming that this has happened
In the case of Iran, it clearly did: the Iranian government was toppled by the CIA because Great Britain's BP didn't want to lose oil revenue. In the case of Iraq, it probably also contributed. But that's not the whole story.
US and European governments don't engage in those shenanigans just because of corporate cronyism (although that does play a role), but primarily because their economies really do depend on cheap oil. If the oil supply gets threatened and prices skyrocket, the economy will tank and they will get kicked out at the next election. This isn't a "war on democracy", instead it is politicians delivering what voters actually want. It is just that voters also don't want to know about the negative consequences of their choices.
But the US only seem to find a reason to get into armed conflict when there is oil involved.
You say that as if it's a bad thing.
They don't literally steal, they just help you "conquer" your country back and then "request" "payment".
Unfortunately, the direct "payment" never covers the cost of the military operations. Most of the benefits of these actions to the US are indirect: they ensure a continued steady flow of oil to Europe and Asia, and the health of those economies is essential to the US. That's also why the US often demands payment from Europe and Asian nations.
Personally, I think the US should stop those operations and let Europe and Asia deal with problems in their own backyard themselves.
For a start, read about how our CIA led a coup to overthrow an elected leader who wanted more profits from the oil companies to go to the people. It was called Operation Ajax
Indeed. And where did those profits go? Great Britain. The CIA acted on behalf of Great Britain, because Great Britain asserted that this was necessary to keep communism out of Europe. Great Britain at the time was, of course, busy oppressing other nations and colonies.
In Saudi Arabia we support an oppressive *monarchy* (i.e., NOT a democracy), apparently because we like their oil.
That's almost right: we support an oppressive monarchy in Saudi Arabia because we like their oil to be available to the world economy; 80% of Saudi Arabia's oil exports go to Europe and Asia, after all.
Now, what do you suggest we do instead? Embargo Saudi Arabia? Invade Saudi Arabia? Subvert the Saudi government? It's not like the US has a choice between a democracy and a monarchy in Saudi Arabia, it has a choice between a monarchy and something even worse.
It's no wonder the Iranians are deeply upset by the sanctions. Surely some people do realise that economic sanctions will likely kill an awful lot of the poorest people in Iran
It is Iran's responsibility to care for its "poorest people". The rest of the world is under no legal or moral obligation to trade with Iran, in particular since Iran unquestionably is working on atomic bombs and has started several wars.
All vital contributors to food availability - agricultural production, importation of foodstuffs, economic stability and income generation, are dependent on Iraq’s ability to purchase and import those items vital to the survival of the civilian population.”
The welfare of their people is primarily the responsibility of their leaders. The leaders of Iraq and Iran could/can restore free trade by changing their behavior. The cause of the sanctions, and hence the cause of the suffering of their people, is their leaders, not the sanctions.
the sanctions are in themselves, a declaration of war.... Like with Iraq, there is no direct evidence of a reason for war
So, you construct a specious argument that "sanctions are war" and then claim that there is "no direct evidence of a reason for war". Well, you are wrong on both counts. Sanctions are not "war"; a war is when there are clashing troops and weapons fire. Furthermore, we have reasons and justification for going to war with Iran.
The reason we shouldn't go to war with Iran isn't your pseudo-humanitarian handwaving, but simply that it isn't in our financial and political interest; it doesn't survive a cost-benefit analysis: Iran isn't enough of a threat to the US, a lot of innocent Iranians would get killed, the US wouldn't recover its costs, and that the chances that it would improve the situation are small.
If you just would leave rest of the alone and not steal resources belonging to other countries then maybe, MAYBE everyone wouldn't hate U.S. so much?
Iran is what it is today because Britain tried to steal its oil. Furthermore, Iran's primary trading partners are China, India, Germany, Russia, Italy, Japan, South Korea. Iran is a mess created by European and primarily of interest to Europeans.
You are, of course, absolutely right that the US should stay out of Iran. Iran is a mess created by Europe, and if Iran goes nuclear, starts a war, or fails to deliver oil, it's primarily a problem for Europe and Asia. The US economy is only affected to the degree that if the European economy goes bust, it's bad for the US as well.
The US price usually doesn't include taxes, which makes up for most of the taxes. Also, you can get many devices from discounters in Europe that are only sold by the carriers or importers in the US.
For the 3G bands, as I was saying: recent Samsung devices tend to support both AT&T and European bands for 3G. Also, the difference between WiFi-only and 3G isn't that large in Europe, so you can also just view it as a nice optional feature.
For one, because we observe the building blocks of carbon-based life throughout the universe.
Furthermore, there are essentially no other choices. There are 81 stable elements, and most of those are metals, halogens, or noble gases--unsuitable for the kinds of complex structures that life depends on. Other than carbon, the only element that conceivably might for the basis for life is silicon, but even that's a stretch.
Whatever you do, you should probably buy the devices in Ireland. The Euro is low right now, and it's easier and cheaper to get unlocked devices without carrier modifications in Europe than it is in the US. And getting a tablet with 3G is definitely worth it in Europe because there are lots of cheap, pre-paid, no-contract Internet plans.
My recommendation would be to take an ultralight laptop and an Android GSM smartphone; that will be a much more flexible and powerful combo. You can get a SIM card for the Android phone and also use it for tethering the laptop. If you pick a 4" phone, it's also good for reading. Make sure you get a smartphone that's unlocked and has international 3G frequencies; Samsung devices tend to be better in that area than HTC.
If you really want a tablet as well, a cheap 7" Android tablet (like a Galaxy Tab or an Acer A100) is another nice option for reading books and navigation, but it is a much more limited device than the laptop. A 10" tablet with a keyboard is good for answering E-mails, giving ready-made presentations, reading, and light photo editing, but it too is too limited to get serious work done on in my experience. If that's good enough for you, the EEE Transformer is probably your best bet (and you can run full Linux on it either natively or as an Android app).
(Apple's devices tend to be worse for international travel due to their unusual SIM cards and the locked up nature of the OS.)
Do you know why you travel? To travel. To experience new things, new people, new places.
Maybe you do. Other people travel because they have to, or because they want to get away from people and have some quiet time.
Not to fuck around with a gadget,
Gadgets like GPS, restaurant guides, and electronic translators make travel a much more pleasant experience, regardless of whether you want to talk to people or not.
I'm assuming you're just trolling. Still, to keep people from making an expensive mistake...
Based on personal experience, I assure you that iPads are inferior for travel: Apple puts all sorts of obstacles in your way when it comes down to basic functions like downloading files, connecting via VPNs, setting up tunnels, etc. You can't read or write arbitrary external file systems, HDMI and VGA output is limited, and Bluetooth keyboards are seriously limited too. I've also had problems with WiFi connectivity with my iPad. All these problems in the end convinced me to buy an Android tablet, and I haven't looked back. I leave the iPad at home now because I think it's not very good for travel.
Android tablets are not only available cheaper and thinner than iPads, the Android market also has tons more of the applications you actually need when traveling. Android has a good high-level data sharing and exchange system (similar to iOS, but better), but in addition also lets you access both the internal and external file systems. Android devices have better cameras and better screens, too. And devices like the EEE Transformer have an excellent keyboard dock.
If you want to root your system, you're much better off than with a jail-broken iOS device, since the Android market contains lots of apps for things like tethering, tunneling, backup/restore, etc. If you want to, you can even install a full Debian system inside a chrooted environment and still use the official Android apps on the same device at the same time.
Slashdot Mirror
So does Christianity.
That's a false dichotomy. Theism is the cause of the violence of Christianity; non-theism is simply all the other ideologies, which have nothing in common other than not being theistic (and deism is something else entirely; look it up). Furthermore, peace without liberty is insufficient. Catholicism and socialism both managed to deliver peace at times, but at a staggering cost in liberty and human development.
Communism, fascism, and socialism are very similar to Christianity (so similar, in fact, that American conservatives keep accusing European nations run by conservative Christians as being "socialist").
The US seems to have been doing pretty well with classical liberalism, and we should stick to that. That means keeping church and state separate, minimizing government services and the welfare state, keeping taxes low, promoting free trade and free markets, protecting free speech, and letting people do what they want with their lives as long as they aren't demonstrably harming others. It means rejecting the theocratic tendencies of the Republicans and the socialist tendencies of the Democrats.
Within such a liberal state, if you want to spend your time talking to an evil, genocidal sky-god like YHWE, that's your own business, as long as you don't put your theories into practice and start harming others.
Really? Where does it say that? You have to become a YouTube partner, which is quite restrictive and involves revenue sharing (i.e., you have to be popular enough to share revenue).
http://support.google.com/youtube/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=1061460
http://www.youtube.com/partners
I wanted to put some open source howto videos online and basically got a reply that I shouldn't bother them again until I was at least as popular as a talking dog or vomiting kitten video.
That's because a lot of people go to the "traditional college system". They don't necessarily learn more, but they have been preselected and they have made a huge financial commitment, both of which makes them "better" employees in some sense.
The root cause of that is the drive to push more and more people into college even though they won't need it for their professions, and to finance this insanity with loans.
Iran is a repressive theocracy that has made the destruction of other nations and religions their declared goal. I'd likely be killed by the regime if I lived there. There is no comparison or analogy between what Iran can do and what the US can do. Of course, I want the US to have nuclear weapons, I want the CIA to be able to hunt down people like bin Laden, and I want the US military to have spy drones and satellites watching the rest of the world. And I decidedly do not want Iran to be able to do any of those things, and if they try, I want the US to intervene. I am pretty sure the majority of American voters feel the same way (even if we think the US should use these tools more judiciously). If you think that's "hypocritical"... well, you'll just have to live with that.
As far as I can tell, Muslim and Jewish claims are equally nutty. According to the Bible, Israel took that land because God told them so and exterminated the people who were living there before.
The flaw isn't with Islam, it's with the Abrahamic religions in genera. If you want to ennoble people and help them restrain their violent urges, you need religions and philosophies that are not based on the premise that whatever a powerful God tells you (told by his priesthood or dreamed up during prayer) is just, right, and moral.
I'm not ignoring that at all. I'm merely saying that this wasn't the initial motivation or cause. The US motivation was to answer a call for help, and the cause was UK foreign ownership of Iranian oil.
Just about every place in the world that's run by socialist or communist governments, since they all are based on socialism, an ideology that originated in Europe.
You obviously haven't been paying much attention to what happened in Libya or Afghanistan.
Europe is more than welcome to leave NATO and ask US troops to leave any time.
No, I don't. I probably have about the same reaction to Fox news as you do. But that doesn't mean that I have any more respect for your position. I think you and European intellectuals like you are the perfect counterpart to Fox and their ilk: you are just as ignorant of history and just as elitist and distrustful of democracy and liberty.
The US didn't create banana republics, they were already there. But if it has to choose, it will choose banana republics that are friendly to its own interests.
And if you think that Europe is such a happy place where everybody loves each other, you haven't been paying attention to Europe's history since WWII or its current state.
Much of of the trade of the Middle East is with Europe and Asia, and Europe is within reach of Middle Eastern missiles.
Yes, we do. And European politicians are paying because they know that it's in their own interest to have the US take care of these dirty jobs. Personally, I think it's a bad deal for the US. I want the US to cut its military budget and let Europeans fight these wars themselves.
Yes, mostly because Europe destroyed itself, its militaries and governments, and its colonies in an orgy of religious and ethnic hatred and violence, followed by half a century of an equally destructive cold war based on yet more twisted European ideologies. And the US was pretty much the only nation trying to stand up to that. And since the fall of the Iron Curtain, the US has mostly been concerned with radical Islam and terrorism.
Yes, that is clearly the point of most of these wars: to ensure that energy companies and banks have access to these countries. Why do you think that's a bad thing? Europe needs the gas and oil, and those countries need political stability, technologies, investment, and credit. What alternatives do you suggest?
Well, given that analysis, you seem to agree then that it comes down to a cost/benefit analysis, not a question of rights. And while you may disagree with the cost/benefit calculation the US government makes vis-a-vis Israel and Iran, I think they are probably better at it than you or I. FWIW, I think US policies towards these nations is mostly right (pressure Iran, befriend Israel), but we should probably gradually reduce our level of involvement overall.
But the analogy is a bad one. British imperialism just didn't work in the long run for anybody. But US military intervention has worked in the past and benefited both the US and the foreign nation.
"Wrong" is a moral judgment. I don't see anything "wrong" with intervening against undemocratic regimes.
But that's just not true. US intervention has often succeeded in liberating nations and turning them into prosperous trading partners, often liberating them in the process. US and European prosperity and security has depended on this system, in particular during the Cold War. If we had pulled back after WWII, the rest of the world would largely be communist and fascist, and both we and the rest of the world would be much poorer and less developed.
We should pull back and bring a lot of our military home. We should also get Europe to do more of its own dirty work. But isolationism isn't the answer because we know it doesn't work.
Iran was about British oil--specificaly, a company called "BP", as in "British Petroleum"--not US oil, period. To claim that US oil interests were the cause of US intervention in Iran is just ridiculous.
Well, I'm glad you are familiar with at least a little bit of ME history. Now read a bit more: the US intervened on behalf of, and on request of, Great Britain because Britain claimed that Iran was being taken over by the Soviets and because Britain was busy trying to keep its failing colonial empire together.
And "intervention" amounted to little more than organizing a protest; the Iranian government was on its last leg anyway.
I don't watch Fox. But you obviously should stop listening to European neo-Marxist propaganda.
Fact is, most of the trouble spots in the world are the result of European fascism, European colonialism and European socialism. The US is trying its best to keep things running, but Americans and American tax payers are running out of patience. If Europe doesn't like the way it's going, Europe should pay for its own damned military.
There is no justification for "obliterating countries", but there can be for military action on the opposite side of the planet. Among other things, the US has allies and international commitments.
US military action isn't driven by "imperialism"; imperialism doesn't work, as Britain and France showed. The US is trying to convert other nations into trading partners with compatible economies and governments. That may or may not be a reasonable thing to do, but it is not "imperialism".
Unfortunately, you're still seeing the aftermath of WWII, with Europe politely refraining from military action and the US taking over Europe's protection and security needs. That should end.
And I tend to agree. But while you seem to think that we should refrain for moral and legal reasons, I just view it as a matter of utility: the low probability of democratizing and liberalizing Iran, Iraq and Afghanistan and the limited economic benefit to us doesn't justify the high human and financial cost. Furthermore, the Middle East should be Europe's financial and military responsibilitiy, not ours.
Technically, I suppose you are right. In practice, Iran's policies and threats have contributed to wars in the region. Don't get me wrong: I think we should stay out of Iran, but we should continue sanctions.
(As for your Fox comment, stop being such a jerk.)
So? Because little Johnny has nuclear weapons, little Jack has a right to have them too? This isn't about rights, it's about threats.
The fact that Israel has nuclear weapons isn't a threat to the US or US allies. Hence, it doesn't concern us much. Given Iran's stated policies, Iranian nuclear weapons are a threat to the US and US allies.
In the case of Iran, it clearly did: the Iranian government was toppled by the CIA because Great Britain's BP didn't want to lose oil revenue. In the case of Iraq, it probably also contributed. But that's not the whole story.
US and European governments don't engage in those shenanigans just because of corporate cronyism (although that does play a role), but primarily because their economies really do depend on cheap oil. If the oil supply gets threatened and prices skyrocket, the economy will tank and they will get kicked out at the next election. This isn't a "war on democracy", instead it is politicians delivering what voters actually want. It is just that voters also don't want to know about the negative consequences of their choices.
You say that as if it's a bad thing.
Unfortunately, the direct "payment" never covers the cost of the military operations. Most of the benefits of these actions to the US are indirect: they ensure a continued steady flow of oil to Europe and Asia, and the health of those economies is essential to the US. That's also why the US often demands payment from Europe and Asian nations.
Personally, I think the US should stop those operations and let Europe and Asia deal with problems in their own backyard themselves.
Indeed. And where did those profits go? Great Britain. The CIA acted on behalf of Great Britain, because Great Britain asserted that this was necessary to keep communism out of Europe. Great Britain at the time was, of course, busy oppressing other nations and colonies.
That's almost right: we support an oppressive monarchy in Saudi Arabia because we like their oil to be available to the world economy; 80% of Saudi Arabia's oil exports go to Europe and Asia, after all.
Now, what do you suggest we do instead? Embargo Saudi Arabia? Invade Saudi Arabia? Subvert the Saudi government? It's not like the US has a choice between a democracy and a monarchy in Saudi Arabia, it has a choice between a monarchy and something even worse.
It is Iran's responsibility to care for its "poorest people". The rest of the world is under no legal or moral obligation to trade with Iran, in particular since Iran unquestionably is working on atomic bombs and has started several wars.
The welfare of their people is primarily the responsibility of their leaders. The leaders of Iraq and Iran could/can restore free trade by changing their behavior. The cause of the sanctions, and hence the cause of the suffering of their people, is their leaders, not the sanctions.
So, you construct a specious argument that "sanctions are war" and then claim that there is "no direct evidence of a reason for war". Well, you are wrong on both counts. Sanctions are not "war"; a war is when there are clashing troops and weapons fire. Furthermore, we have reasons and justification for going to war with Iran.
The reason we shouldn't go to war with Iran isn't your pseudo-humanitarian handwaving, but simply that it isn't in our financial and political interest; it doesn't survive a cost-benefit analysis: Iran isn't enough of a threat to the US, a lot of innocent Iranians would get killed, the US wouldn't recover its costs, and that the chances that it would improve the situation are small.
Iran is what it is today because Britain tried to steal its oil. Furthermore, Iran's primary trading partners are China, India, Germany, Russia, Italy, Japan, South Korea. Iran is a mess created by European and primarily of interest to Europeans.
You are, of course, absolutely right that the US should stay out of Iran. Iran is a mess created by Europe, and if Iran goes nuclear, starts a war, or fails to deliver oil, it's primarily a problem for Europe and Asia. The US economy is only affected to the degree that if the European economy goes bust, it's bad for the US as well.
The US price usually doesn't include taxes, which makes up for most of the taxes. Also, you can get many devices from discounters in Europe that are only sold by the carriers or importers in the US.
For the 3G bands, as I was saying: recent Samsung devices tend to support both AT&T and European bands for 3G. Also, the difference between WiFi-only and 3G isn't that large in Europe, so you can also just view it as a nice optional feature.
For one, because we observe the building blocks of carbon-based life throughout the universe.
Furthermore, there are essentially no other choices. There are 81 stable elements, and most of those are metals, halogens, or noble gases--unsuitable for the kinds of complex structures that life depends on. Other than carbon, the only element that conceivably might for the basis for life is silicon, but even that's a stretch.
Whatever you do, you should probably buy the devices in Ireland. The Euro is low right now, and it's easier and cheaper to get unlocked devices without carrier modifications in Europe than it is in the US. And getting a tablet with 3G is definitely worth it in Europe because there are lots of cheap, pre-paid, no-contract Internet plans.
My recommendation would be to take an ultralight laptop and an Android GSM smartphone; that will be a much more flexible and powerful combo. You can get a SIM card for the Android phone and also use it for tethering the laptop. If you pick a 4" phone, it's also good for reading. Make sure you get a smartphone that's unlocked and has international 3G frequencies; Samsung devices tend to be better in that area than HTC.
If you really want a tablet as well, a cheap 7" Android tablet (like a Galaxy Tab or an Acer A100) is another nice option for reading books and navigation, but it is a much more limited device than the laptop. A 10" tablet with a keyboard is good for answering E-mails, giving ready-made presentations, reading, and light photo editing, but it too is too limited to get serious work done on in my experience. If that's good enough for you, the EEE Transformer is probably your best bet (and you can run full Linux on it either natively or as an Android app).
(Apple's devices tend to be worse for international travel due to their unusual SIM cards and the locked up nature of the OS.)
Maybe you do. Other people travel because they have to, or because they want to get away from people and have some quiet time.
Gadgets like GPS, restaurant guides, and electronic translators make travel a much more pleasant experience, regardless of whether you want to talk to people or not.
I'm assuming you're just trolling. Still, to keep people from making an expensive mistake...
Based on personal experience, I assure you that iPads are inferior for travel: Apple puts all sorts of obstacles in your way when it comes down to basic functions like downloading files, connecting via VPNs, setting up tunnels, etc. You can't read or write arbitrary external file systems, HDMI and VGA output is limited, and Bluetooth keyboards are seriously limited too. I've also had problems with WiFi connectivity with my iPad. All these problems in the end convinced me to buy an Android tablet, and I haven't looked back. I leave the iPad at home now because I think it's not very good for travel.
Android tablets are not only available cheaper and thinner than iPads, the Android market also has tons more of the applications you actually need when traveling. Android has a good high-level data sharing and exchange system (similar to iOS, but better), but in addition also lets you access both the internal and external file systems. Android devices have better cameras and better screens, too. And devices like the EEE Transformer have an excellent keyboard dock.
If you want to root your system, you're much better off than with a jail-broken iOS device, since the Android market contains lots of apps for things like tethering, tunneling, backup/restore, etc. If you want to, you can even install a full Debian system inside a chrooted environment and still use the official Android apps on the same device at the same time.