http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8422989.stm
QuoteA US Army general in northern Iraq has defended his decision to add pregnancy to the list of reasons a soldier under his command could face court martial.
It is current army policy to send pregnant soldiers home, but Maj Gen Anthony Cucolo told the BBC he was losing people with critical skills.
That was why the added deterrent of a possible court martial was needed, he said.
The new policy applies both to female and male soldiers, even if married.
It is the first time the US Army has made pregnancy a punishable offence.
Gen Cucolo told the BBC it was a "black and white" issue for him.
He said married soldiers in combat zones should either put their love lives on hold - or take precautions.
"I've got a mission to do, I'm given a finite number of soldiers with which to do it and I need every one of them."
"So I'm going to take every measure I can to keep them all strong, fit and with me for the twelve months we are in the combat zone," he said.
Finally a military man after my own heart. :wub:
Next poll by the BBC: Should pregnant women be put in front of the execution squad?
Next poll by the BBC: "Would you chop the legs off of Bambi with a chain saw if it meant that Martinus could never post on Languish again?"
Quote from: grumbler on December 20, 2009, 01:52:20 AM
Next poll by the BBC: "Would you chop the legs off of Bambi with a chain saw if it meant that Martinus could never post on Languish again?"
I'd chop them off with a dull spoon.
Since so far only 2 out of 3 Languish posters whom I am ignoring posted in this thread, I'm gonna wait for the trifecta.
Am I the third?
Oh, wait, it's probably Tim.
LOL can I be: Third?
Negative. -_-
I only ignore people who imho contribute nothing whatsoever to this board.
Quote from: Martinus on December 20, 2009, 03:47:06 AM
I only ignore people who imho contribute nothing whatsoever to this board.
I thought it was an interesting article, no need to be an ass about it.
Quote from: sbr on December 20, 2009, 03:54:15 AM
Quote from: Martinus on December 20, 2009, 03:47:06 AM
I only ignore people who imho contribute nothing whatsoever to this board.
I thought it was an interesting article, no need to be an ass about it.
Errr, you realise I meant Berkut and grumbler, right?
Quote from: Martinus on December 20, 2009, 03:59:24 AM
Quote from: sbr on December 20, 2009, 03:54:15 AM
Quote from: Martinus on December 20, 2009, 03:47:06 AM
I only ignore people who imho contribute nothing whatsoever to this board.
I thought it was an interesting article, no need to be an ass about it.
Errr, you realise I meant Berkut and grumbler, right?
Oh... well never mind then. ;)
Fine i'm here
Quote from: Martinus on December 20, 2009, 03:47:06 AM
I only ignore people who imho contribute nothing whatsoever to this board.
Yet you pay attention to Jaron and Fireblade? :unsure:
Quote from: katmai on December 20, 2009, 04:23:48 AM
Quote from: Martinus on December 20, 2009, 04:22:54 AM
Quote from: katmai on December 20, 2009, 04:19:59 AM
Fine i'm here
It's not you either. :lol:
But i don't contribute to this board either!
Au contraire. You provide comic relief as well as serve as a living cautionary tale to our younger posters.
Martinus is probably referring to Neil or Hansmeister.
Quote from: Jaron on December 20, 2009, 04:41:50 AM
Martinus is probably referring to Neil or Hansmeister.
Negative.
Me?!?
Spellus
mono
PDH
Brazen!
Uhm, I think it's sbr's thread... :lol:
Would having an abortion get you off?
Siege is safe! :w00t:
Quote from: DGuller on December 20, 2009, 05:51:30 AM
Would having an abortion get you off?
I've heard of some pretty weird fetishes, but this beats them all.
Since when does anybody contribute something positive to Languish, with th eoccasional exception of vM who often keeps the board up in the first place?
Quote from: DGuller on December 20, 2009, 05:51:30 AM
Would having an abortion get you off?
I suppose that has to be a fetish for someone, somewhere, so i say yes.
Quote from: Habbaku on December 20, 2009, 12:08:48 PM
Quote from: DGuller on December 20, 2009, 05:51:30 AM
Would having an abortion get you off?
I've heard of some pretty weird fetishes, but this beats them all.
Rule 34, dude. If it exists, there's porn on it somewhere on the Interwebz.
EDIT: Just checked around, and yes it does exist. Rule 34 proven right again. :bleeding:
Simply mandate abortions. Problem solved.
Quote from: Neil on December 20, 2009, 12:45:24 PM
Simply mandate abortions. Problem solved.
My solution to most problems, too.
Quote from: Martinus on December 20, 2009, 01:31:41 PM
Quote from: Neil on December 20, 2009, 12:45:24 PM
Simply mandate abortions. Problem solved.
My solution to most problems, too.
It's not the best solution. The best solution to any problem is the liquidation of the entire population of the world outside of North America, Western Europe and Japan, coupled with the elimination of homosexuality and Christianity. Christianity will be eliminated through education, homosexuality through physical destruction and genetic screening.
Quote from: Neil on December 20, 2009, 01:40:10 PM
Quote from: Martinus on December 20, 2009, 01:31:41 PM
Quote from: Neil on December 20, 2009, 12:45:24 PM
Simply mandate abortions. Problem solved.
My solution to most problems, too.
It's not the best solution. The best solution to any problem is the liquidation of the entire population of the world outside of North America, Western Europe and Japan, coupled with the elimination of homosexuality and Christianity. Christianity will be eliminated through education, homosexuality through physical destruction and genetic screening.
Our newfound relationship was going so well but you had to ruin it. :(
Are you suggesting we could also eliminate homosexuality through education? Perhaps then Neil might be merciful.
Quote from: Martinus on December 20, 2009, 01:52:21 PM
Quote from: Neil on December 20, 2009, 01:40:10 PM
Quote from: Martinus on December 20, 2009, 01:31:41 PM
Quote from: Neil on December 20, 2009, 12:45:24 PM
Simply mandate abortions. Problem solved.
My solution to most problems, too.
It's not the best solution. The best solution to any problem is the liquidation of the entire population of the world outside of North America, Western Europe and Japan, coupled with the elimination of homosexuality and Christianity. Christianity will be eliminated through education, homosexuality through physical destruction and genetic screening.
Our newfound relationship was going so well but you had to ruin it. :(
I cannot abide those who would attack order.
The military is filled with an inordinate amount of Christian fundamentalists, so the abortion thing won't fly.
Quote from: Fate on December 20, 2009, 05:24:41 PM
The military is filled with an inordinate amount of Christian fundamentalists, so the abortion thing won't fly.
Who cares what soldiers think about anything? Their job isn't to think, it is to obey.
Quote from: Drakken on December 20, 2009, 12:22:44 PM
Quote from: Habbaku on December 20, 2009, 12:08:48 PM
Quote from: DGuller on December 20, 2009, 05:51:30 AM
Would having an abortion get you off?
I've heard of some pretty weird fetishes, but this beats them all.
Rule 34, dude. If it exists, there's porn on it somewhere on the Interwebz.
EDIT: Just checked around, and yes it does exist. Rule 34 proven right again. :bleeding:
Actually, what fits better here is Rule 35: if you can imagine it, somebody has a fetish for it.
Rule 34 is sort of a subset (or possibly a logical outcome) of Rule 35.
What if religious soldiers are against using condoms or taking the pill? That threat would basically force those soldiers to go against their religion.
Quote from: The Larch on December 20, 2009, 09:39:22 PM
What if religious soldiers are against using condoms or taking the pill? That threat would basically force those soldiers to go against their religion.
Then they must abstain, or go to jail.
Quote from: The Larch on December 20, 2009, 09:39:22 PM
What if religious soldiers are against using condoms or taking the pill? That threat would basically force those soldiers to go against their religion.
If they're that religious then they're used to having authority figures tell then when and how they should have sex, so if they're told to abstain, they will.
I'm willing to bet it's not the fundie chicks in the Army (of which I doubt there are many) who are getting knocked up.
I assume the 3rd person Martinus mentioned is me, though I'm glad that none of the people who threw out guesses picked me. :hug:
Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 20, 2009, 11:04:31 PM
I assume the 3rd person Martinus mentioned is me, though I'm glad that none of the people who threw out guesses picked me. :hug:
Fuck!
How could i forget Timmay
The "third person" is whoever happened to annoy him lately. It's not like he could actually ignore anyone if he tried - after all, they might say something about gay people, and he would miss it! Or something not about gay people, but which could end up being about gay people anyway.
Marty's "ignore" list is even less credible than dgullers was...
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on December 20, 2009, 01:57:50 PM
Are you suggesting we could also eliminate homosexuality through education? Perhaps then Neil might be merciful.
While I do not have a personal interest in the subject, I am quite open to the possibility that homosexuality has a lot to do with cultural and environmental factors (which is not to say it is self-chosen).
One could imagine, for example, too many men in a tribe and not enough women. Instead of the tribe being ripped apart by violent conflict over women, some men take the roles of women, thus 1) bowing out of the competition 2) performing the role of women which is in short demand, along with the tasks associated with that role. For the individual, this has the advantage of not being killed in violent competition over women and from an evolutionary perspective he will be helping the survival of his genes as he will be contributing to the cohesion and strength of the tribe, i.e. his family and extended family, which, if torn apart by internal conflict, could easily be driven off its land/killed/enslaved by a stronger tribe. Presumably this would work at a sub-conscious level and be triggered by group dynamics and workings of the cultural super-ego beyond the understanding of individuals (I'm not talking about our modern nation-wide cultural super-egos but the ones arising individually, and quite literally organically, as soon as people are grouped together).
It is interesting to note that a significant amount of tribal cultures practice ritualized homosexuality, i.e. homosexuality incorporated into the cultures and traditions as shaped by generations of experience, and presumably filling certain functions. 22%, if I recall correctly, of melanesian tribes practice ritualized homosexuality. There is correlation between ritualized homosexuality and low-productivity habitats, which indicates homosexuality can also have a role of counteracting over-population (*).
Essentially, my hypothesis is that homosexuality is genetic and innate in all men, but it is only triggered in specific circumstances. One would expect a priest living in celebacy being denied women having this mechanism triggered. One would also expect it to trigger in all-male or male-dominant environments (such as adolescent boys in a boarding school).
Maybe I'm wrong, but at least it's interesting to speculate about.
(*)
(This is tangential, but what I mean is that the sexual drive is not directed towards women, which would produce babies, but elsewhere: an example of this being taken to an extreme would be the Etoro tribe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etoro); reducing fertility might at a glance seem counter-intuitive from an evolutionary perspective but if you take the Malthusian dynamics into consideration it makes sense and one finds many examples of cultures counteracting overpopulation in various ways; other examples of measures to counter-act overpopulation is the practice of penile subinsicion found among various primitive peoples all over the world, which allows sperm to escape from the base of the penis outside of the vagina, and the practice among polynesians to ritually suicide-journey into the ocean, which occasionally led them to new lands, which is how they came to populate some quite remote islands in the Pacific and, presumably, even Madagascar across the Indian ocean.)
Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 20, 2009, 11:04:31 PM
I assume the 3rd person Martinus mentioned is me, though I'm glad that none of the people who threw out guesses picked me. :hug:
:whistle:
Quote from: Berkut on December 20, 2009, 11:07:51 PM
The "third person" is whoever happened to annoy him lately. It's not like he could actually ignore anyone if he tried - after all, they might say something about gay people, and he would miss it! Or something not about gay people, but which could end up being about gay people anyway.
Marty's "ignore" list is even less credible than dgullers was...
But it is also largely identical.
That is two exclusive clubs I am proud to be part of.
This policy seems fine. The military has its discipline standards. Getting pregnant takes a soldier out of duty, perhaps doing needed jobs in a dangerous zone, creating a shortage for the job. Males and females are punishable; it's not something against women at all. This makes sense, though not politically correct sense, so some groups are of course "outraged".
Why do you ignore Tim, Marti?
Grumbler & Berkut, sure why not but Tim?
Might as well ignore Valmy while you are at it.
A punch to the stomach ends the issue.
Quote from: KRonn on December 23, 2009, 10:32:03 AM
This policy seems fine. The military has its discipline standards. Getting pregnant takes a soldier out of duty, perhaps doing needed jobs in a dangerous zone, creating a shortage for the job. Males and females are punishable; it's not something against women at all. This makes sense, though not politically correct sense, so some groups are of course "outraged".
On the other hand, it's easier to figure out who the mother is than who the father is.
Quote from: Grey Fox on December 23, 2009, 10:38:34 AM
Might as well ignore Valmy while you are at it.
When the issue is Israel, this is
outstanding advice! :cool:
Quote from: grumbler on December 23, 2009, 04:53:55 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on December 23, 2009, 10:38:34 AM
Might as well ignore Valmy while you are at it.
When the issue is Israel, this is outstanding advice! :cool:
Some people cannot handle the truth -_-
He did mention that I don't bring anything valuable to the table once but I didn't think that was particularly noteworthy.
Quote from: KRonn on December 23, 2009, 10:32:03 AM
This policy seems fine. The military has its discipline standards. Getting pregnant takes a soldier out of duty, perhaps doing needed jobs in a dangerous zone, creating a shortage for the job. Males and females are punishable; it's not something against women at all. This makes sense, though not politically correct sense, so some groups are of course "outraged".
First off if it's army policy to send pregnant soldiers home (as stated in the OP), does this general have the authority to change that on his own? I'm not an expert on military law, but isn't what is and isn't a court-martial offense a matter of written law, not just something that individual commanders decide on?
Also, how does it apply to both male and female soldiers? Does that mean that if a male soldier is home on leave and gets his civilian wife pregnant, he can be court-martialed? If so, the why? It doesn't diminish readiness.
Quote from: dps on December 23, 2009, 06:21:47 PM
Quote from: KRonn on December 23, 2009, 10:32:03 AM
This policy seems fine. The military has its discipline standards. Getting pregnant takes a soldier out of duty, perhaps doing needed jobs in a dangerous zone, creating a shortage for the job. Males and females are punishable; it's not something against women at all. This makes sense, though not politically correct sense, so some groups are of course "outraged".
First off if it's army policy to send pregnant soldiers home (as stated in the OP), does this general have the authority to change that on his own? I'm not an expert on military law, but isn't what is and isn't a court-martial offense a matter of written law, not just something that individual commanders decide on?
Why wouldn't they be sent home just because they get court-martialed?
Quote from: dps on December 23, 2009, 06:21:47 PM
Quote from: KRonn on December 23, 2009, 10:32:03 AM
This policy seems fine. The military has its discipline standards. Getting pregnant takes a soldier out of duty, perhaps doing needed jobs in a dangerous zone, creating a shortage for the job. Males and females are punishable; it's not something against women at all. This makes sense, though not politically correct sense, so some groups are of course "outraged".
First off if it's army policy to send pregnant soldiers home (as stated in the OP), does this general have the authority to change that on his own? I'm not an expert on military law, but isn't what is and isn't a court-martial offense a matter of written law, not just something that individual commanders decide on?
Also, how does it apply to both male and female soldiers? Does that mean that if a male soldier is home on leave and gets his civilian wife pregnant, he can be court-martialed? If so, the why? It doesn't diminish readiness.
The General is talking about male or female soldiers who get pregnant, or impregnate another soldier, while on duty in an Iraq zone. That takes the female out of action, and both are subject to some disciplinary action. Causes a loss of at least one soldier, but both played so both can be held liable. But it's not heavy discipline from what I see. That's the way I read it, and it seems reasonable.
Decision reversed
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/34579550#34543418
American cowardice knows no bounds.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 23, 2009, 08:19:15 PM
Decision reversed
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/34579550#34543418
Too bad. It really wasn't such a big deal it seems, and was just military discipline for what seemed responsible reasoning by the General.
Quote from: Valmy on December 23, 2009, 05:21:30 PM
Some people cannot handle the truth -_-
And some cannot speak it. -_-
Quote from: dps on December 23, 2009, 06:21:47 PM
First off if it's army policy to send pregnant soldiers home (as stated in the OP), does this general have the authority to change that on his own? I'm not an expert on military law, but isn't what is and isn't a court-martial offense a matter of written law, not just something that individual commanders decide on?
I don't think the general can over-ride the policy on sending pregnant women home, and I have seen nothing to indicate that he even considered it. As far as courts-martial are concerned, they are a matter of law (the USMJ) but the UCMJ allows for convening a court-martial on someone who incapacitates him/herself (or another soldier) for duty
QuoteAlso, how does it apply to both male and female soldiers? Does that mean that if a male soldier is home on leave and gets his civilian wife pregnant, he can be court-martialed? If so, the why? It doesn't diminish readiness.
If the wife is a civilian, how could this general's military orders apply to her?
Quote from: The Larch on December 20, 2009, 09:39:22 PM
What if religious soldiers are against using condoms or taking the pill? That threat would basically force those soldiers to go against their religion.
:bowler:
Quote from: dps on December 23, 2009, 06:21:47 PM
Also, how does it apply to both male and female soldiers? Does that mean that if a male soldier is home on leave and gets his civilian wife pregnant, he can be court-martialed? If so, the why? It doesn't diminish readiness.
I understood that to mean that if a male soldier fucks a female soldier and gets her pregnant, they will both be court-martialed, and not the example you made.
Quote from: Martinus on December 24, 2009, 03:12:05 AM
Quote from: dps on December 23, 2009, 06:21:47 PM
Also, how does it apply to both male and female soldiers? Does that mean that if a male soldier is home on leave and gets his civilian wife pregnant, he can be court-martialed? If so, the why? It doesn't diminish readiness.
I understood that to mean that if a male soldier fucks a female soldier and gets her pregnant, they will both be court-martialed, and not the example you made.
That makes sense, but the article said that the policy applied equally to male and female soldiers. So it applies to female soldiers who get pregnant by civilians (and it seems to), if it doesn't apply to male soldiers who get civilians pregnant, it doens't apply equally.
Quote from: Martinus on December 24, 2009, 03:12:05 AM
I understood that to mean that if a male soldier fucks a female soldier and gets her pregnant, they will both be court-martialed, and not the example you made.
I was under the impression that kind of fraternization was already verbot, not just in case of pregnancy. :huh:
And the rule goes byebye:
QuoteCommander to Rescind a Provision on Pregnancy
(http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/26/us/26military.html)
WASHINGTON (AP) — The top United States commander in Iraq intends to rescind a policy that had placed pregnant soldiers at risk of discipline.
The commander, Gen. Ray Odierno, has drafted a broad new policy for American forces in Iraq that will take effect Jan. 1 and will not include a pregnancy provision that one of his subordinate commanders enacted last month, the United States military command in Iraq said Thursday.
The news of General Odierno's order comes about a week after the pregnancy policy issued by Maj. Gen. Anthony Cucolo set off widespread criticism. General Cucolo had issued a policy that would permit the punishment of soldiers who become pregnant and their sexual partners.
The pregnancy provision was one of a variety of offenses for which General Cucolo said punishments could range from minor discipline to a court-martial.
In a conference call with reporters earlier this week, he said he would never actually seek to jail someone over a pregnancy. General Cucolo said the policy had been intended to emphasize the problems created when pregnant soldiers go home and leave behind a weaker unit.
The new general order issued by General Odierno, which follows a full review of existing orders, consolidates and replaces several general orders from United States commanders across Iraq.
Once again, America fails.
Quote from: dps on December 24, 2009, 09:28:54 AM
Quote from: Martinus on December 24, 2009, 03:12:05 AM
Quote from: dps on December 23, 2009, 06:21:47 PM
Also, how does it apply to both male and female soldiers? Does that mean that if a male soldier is home on leave and gets his civilian wife pregnant, he can be court-martialed? If so, the why? It doesn't diminish readiness.
I understood that to mean that if a male soldier fucks a female soldier and gets her pregnant, they will both be court-martialed, and not the example you made.
That makes sense, but the article said that the policy applied equally to male and female soldiers. So it applies to female soldiers who get pregnant by civilians (and it seems to), if it doesn't apply to male soldiers who get civilians pregnant, it doens't apply equally.
Hint: only females have wombs. :P
Quote from: dps on December 24, 2009, 09:28:54 AM
That makes sense, but the article said that the policy applied equally to male and female soldiers. So it applies to female soldiers who get pregnant by civilians (and it seems to), if it doesn't apply to male soldiers who get civilians pregnant, it doens't apply equally.
Both partners in rendering a soldier unable to continue her combat tour would be subject to discipline, unless the male partner was not a soldier and therefor not subject to the UCMJ. It applies to male and female
soldiers equally. Dunno why this seems so hard to understand.
Quote from: grumbler on December 27, 2009, 08:27:10 PM
Quote from: dps on December 24, 2009, 09:28:54 AM
That makes sense, but the article said that the policy applied equally to male and female soldiers. So it applies to female soldiers who get pregnant by civilians (and it seems to), if it doesn't apply to male soldiers who get civilians pregnant, it doens't apply equally.
Both partners in rendering a soldier unable to continue her combat tour would be subject to discipline, unless the male partner was not a soldier and therefor not subject to the UCMJ. It applies to male and female soldiers equally. Dunno why this seems so hard to understand.
Gives a whole new meaning to the term "Friendly Fire," eh?