or multiple nations and our invasion of these nation was a response to that. In that case, anyone detained in connection with these wars is either a regular soldier or member of a voluntary militia,
both of which are fully covered by the geneva convention and must be treated as POWs.

OR

We were attacked by a non-national criminal network. In this case all people detained are regular
criminals, subject to civil laws.

In THAT case however, the invasion of other countries was a totally illegal act under international law, and should lead to the death penalty for those who set it off, by the standards of Nuremberg.


This half-assed gray area bullshit, twisting the law the way we like it, has to stop. It may be fitting for some autocratic regime, but not for a self-proclaimed democracy.

Because usually, when one invades a country, one destroys all types of governing infrastructure. One artificially creates a power vacuum and then fills it with one's own forces. One therefore becomes the new ruling body.

Now, of course if one then just leaves this country, one will risk leaving it in a state of lawlessness. Therefore one can then always accuse the peace movement, those who were against the invasion from the start and are now calling for withdrawal, of being irresponsible and working towards anarchy and more destruction in that occupied
country.

I think the best way for the current government to display that it is interested in peace, is to start by throwing those in jail who ordered the initial invasion. Because that was the original crime, after which everything else became a choice between bad decisions.

As useful as they may be in emergencies and for long-distance conversations, their abundant presence in everyday life totally get on my nerves.

Not only are they everywhere, people also expect you to carry an activated one at all times. And from my experience, many people expect that, if they call you, you at that very moment are ready to stop whatever it is you are doing and have a ten minute conversation, and get offended if you cut them off.
And people complain if your cellphone is switched off for an extended period of time.

And people think that, because everyone has a phone, that gives them the right to re-negotiate appointments at short-notice at all times.

People talk on them while driving and cause wrecks. Or they sit next to you on a train and have a loud conversation about the details of their private life that you wish they would keep to themselves. Teenagers use them to play their annoying shit-music right next to you, and of course, everything you do is recorded on cell-cam.

And if you are talking to someone and their phone rings, somehow the phone instantly becomes more important than whatever it was you were talking about, and they find it perfectly fine to stop talking to you in order to have a ten-minute conversation about some shit with whoever it is that is calling.

I know all of this is a blessing because of the possibilities, but I think its also sometimes a curse.

I like the internet, and I think email is a good way to communicate most of the time. It is polite, because you leave it up to the recipient when, or if, they want to answer.

Because my dad was in the Army and stationed in Germany and my mom is German.

I went to school and college in Germany.

Now, my family has always been working class. My dad spent most of his life either
unemployed or as a construction worker. My mom has been a low rank bank employee most
of her life.

I had health care all of my life. Never paid more than a few euro (or marks) for
some pills or whatever. No large bills for any procedure. I've had operations,
dental and and eyecare and whatnot.

Also: I got a masters-degree equivalent with paying virtually nothing for it. All
I had to do is not flunk out. If my mom would have lost her job, then the government would
have even given me a free place to live as long as I stay in college.

In other words: No one in my family is rich. Our background is extremely modest. We have never been
poor but not "well off" either. Still, I had everything I needed to be set up for higher education.

Whenever I'm in the states and see how some people I know are doing, it really feels like travelling to the
third world. But in a bizarre way, because the technology in the states always seems to be a few small steps ahead
of Germany (fancy electronic road signs and faster internet for instance). But the social structure in the States is so far behind that it is absolutely astonishing.

What is even more astonishing are those, usually dirt-poor, people in the States who are kicking and screaming "HELL NO!!! DON'T GIVE US ALL THAT FREE STUFF!!!"

Nothing is to gain from mixing the question whether something is morally right and whether it is a choice.

Being gay is not a choice, but even if it was, it still would not be wrong to be gay. Shifting the debate to whether
it is a choice or not, when one really wants to debate whether it is moral or not, IMO is not helpful.

I, personally, think the United States military is an organization with no morals and has been that way for decades.
I think there is nothing remotely noble or heroic about joining this organization.
However, I understand that most people are driven to join it by forces largely beyond their control. Two seperate issues.

I understand that for any military to function properly, the crucial ingredient is an indisputable chain of command.
The common analogy is that orders given from the top should drop to the bottom ranks like a falling rock without any obstruction. This is essential, because any type of ambiguities that arise inevitably lead to a decreased efficiency of the military.

I understand that some DUers, especially some of those who have been or are members of the military, frown upon soldiers
who have deserted or went AWOL in face of being ordered to fight in the wars of Iraq and Afghanistan. The rationale, so it is said, is that regardless of the morality of the war that is being conducted, is that

1. desertation is equal to letting down your comrades
2. it is crucial that we maintain the integrity of the chain of command, so that our military may remain efficient for
future conflicts that, perhaps, have a more solid moral base.

My question is whether there is, or should be, a "breaking point" for the chain of command. Some red line that should not be crossed.

In other words: "What is the order that should not be followed under any circumstances?" and also "Which country or countries should one refuse to march against if ordered to do so?".

I understand that in active combat, the external pressure and peer pressure can get very intense to go along with things such as shooting civilians or engaging in torture in order to protect oneself or comrades.

Are there, nevertheless, orders that should not be followed under any circumstances?

What if, for instance, we were ordered to march against one of our present allies. Let's say, today the order is given to march against France. Would a soldier be morally bound to follow these orders as to not let down their comrades or
destroy the integrity of the chain of command?

Or say the situation is more severe: The order is given to march against fellow citizens. Let's say, in order to break up a civil protest.

I just wonder how DUers see this issue. Are there, or should there be, clear definitions as to which orders one is morally bound to. Or is it all shades of gray and dependent on individual circumstances?

What matters is whether or not a person accepts that the universe follows causal un-violatable rules.

I think this is the principal difference the people who deny evolution and those who don't.

In the past, it was a widespread belief that mice can just appear out of nothing in old barns. Or that
fruit just has a tendency to turn into worms if left to lay around, for no particular reason
that can be further explored.

The claim that there are hidden, in-explorable, unexplainable things at work within the developement
of species is no different from that.

What distinguishes a scientific point of view from other points of view is the assumption
that a causal chain of events can be traced all the way back to the beginning of the universe.

Now the definition of causality is by no means an easy one. Modern physics investigates
the causal evolution of quantum states.

And obviously, a final definition of causality must also contain an explanation what time really is,
otherwise one could always ask about the cause before the cause.

But that doesn't change the fact that no single events that violate the postulate
of quantum causality after the beginning of the universe are reliably accounted for.

So far, all accounts of intrinsicly inexplainable phenomena are very likely explained by the
explainable flaws of human perception.

... that a bunch of billionaires from Texas are "in touch with them" and would be best suited to represent their interests, and that in contrast, the party which has strong ties with the labour movement consists of "elitists with all that money behind them".

IMO, if it wasn't for the widespread racism, anti-intellectualism and nationalism, they would have never been able to pull it off.

Ever since Obama was elected, among some other things, I have seen DUers complain about Obama

1. not pulling out of Iraq.
2. not pulling out of Afghanistan.
3. not being agressive enough on health-care.
4. not patriot-acting Rush Limbaugh and Dick Cheney off to Gitmo.
5. not closing Gitmo.
6. not getting rid of the patriot act.
7. not doing enough for woman's rights.
8. not doing enough for gay's rights.
9. not doing enough for animal rights.
10. not doing enough for children.
11. not abolishing the death penalty.
12. not patriot-acting rich bankers off to Gitmo.
13. not being pro-Israel enough.
14. not being anti-Israel enough.
15. listening to Republicans.
16. not nationalizing all infrastructure-related industry.

and some even complaining about him

17. not sending me a christmas card and a pony.
18. not liking the same movies as I do.

I think I have NOT read anyone here saying that Obama

a. is too black.
b. shouldn't be president because he is secretly a Muslim.
c. doesn't have a birth certificate.
d. is gonna deport Christians into concentration camps.
e. is Hitler.
f. will establish a marxist oligarhy (without a "c").
g. will euthanize grandma and Sarah Palin's down syndrome child
h. will force our children to be gay and have abortions
i. will take hard-working americans tax money and give it to illegal immigrated welfare queens.
j. should melt like a snail.
l. needs to be overthrown to restore the constitution.
m. is too smart to be president.
n. is forcing our children into evolutionism.

You may or may not agree with points 1 through 18, but regardless of your opinion on these matters, some of them are valid topics of discussion.
Had any other person won the election, e.g. Hillary Clinton, John Edwards,
Dennis Kucinich or John McCain, people would still be discussing those very same points. Those who are offended by discussing them need to get the fuck over it. It is not going to stop, nor should it in a functioning democracy.

Points a through n are despicable nonsense. Non of these, however, have been suggested by any DUers that I am aware of. If you see anyone spouting off one of these then, by all means, use profanity or whatever suits you. But don't go around confusing people from the 1 through 18 camp with the a through n camp, because they are entirely different.

One more thing. I voted for Obama. And I was largely indifferent to Obama getting the Nobel prize. I think the reasons they gave for awarding him with the prize were plausible. I also think that other people exist who might have also deserved such a prize. The thing I enjoy most about it is how it pisses the right-wingers off to no end.