Army General Makes Pregnancy Punishable Offense in Iraq

[ETR3(SS)]

I'm glad someone still has their balls attached in our military today.

According to the Nov. 4 general order (http://abcnews.go.com/US/Afghanistan/marines-begin-surge-days-christmas/story?id=9352688) of Maj. Gen. Anthony Cucolo III, a commander in northern Iraq (http://abcnews.go.com/US/family-seeks-answers-soldiers-mysterious-death/story?id=9221079), the punishment would apply not only to the female soldiers who become pregnant, but also to the male soldiers who impregnate them, even if the couple is married. http://abcnews.go.com/WN/army-maj-general-makes-pregnancy-punishable-offense-iraq/story?id=9391242&page=1

[Snestorm]

A good example of why woman should be excluded from these situations.

[Skybird]

Illustrates how overstretched american military ressources are - and probably also how unpopular the war has become even within the military.

But I doubt that any pregant soldier ever would be punished. The General has fired an empty threat to bring attention to an urgent issue.

[XabbaRus]

I agree. I don't have a problem with women serving but when in theatre there should be restrictions. I also wouldn't post a married couple in the army to the same theatre for obvious reasons. One being what he has stated.

I bet the PC brigade will start screaming discrimination but who cares.

[Snestorm]

I agree. I don't have a problem with women serving but when in theatre there should be restrictions. I also wouldn't post a married couple in the army to the same theatre for obvious reasons. One being what he has stated.

I bet the PC brigade will start screaming discrimination but who cares.

The hidden problem with the PC Brigade is that what they are pushing as a Right for a minority of women today, will be transformed to a Requirement for all women tommorrow.

[ETR3(SS)]

Snestorm,; you hit it right on the nose there.

Skybird; American Military Resources are stretched at any time, and by the military's own doing. I think it's safe to say that being in a combat zone is unpopular no matter how fresh or old the war is. But I personally hope that this is not an empty threat, and that the first one to violate this order gives birth behind bars. PCness has gotten out of hand in this world. Somebody needs to stand up and call out the BS that's going on. You join the military for a reason, and that reason is not making babies.

XabbaRus; Top of page three the PC circus begins.

[August]

The hidden problem with the PC Brigade is that what they are pushing as a Right for a minority of women today, will be transformed to a Requirement for all women tommorrow.

Yeah the womens movement fought for the right for women to enter the workplace. Now it's pretty much necessary for both parents to work just to make ends meet.

[Skybird]

Snestorm,; you hit it right on the nose there.

Skybird; American Military Resources are stretched at any time, and by the military's own doing. I think it's safe to say that being in a combat zone is unpopular no matter how fresh or old the war is. But I personally hope that this is not an empty threat, and that the first one to violate this order gives birth behind bars. PCness has gotten out of hand in this world. Somebody needs to stand up and call out the BS that's going on. You join the military for a reason, and that reason is not making babies.


Sure, but you do not stop to be a human subjugated to human drives and motives just because you wear a uniform. Most people do not stop to think about sex just because they are at war.

Also, many poor people and members of the social low class do not join the military necessarily because of idealistic reasons, but because it is their only way to escape the street, their former worse life, and being a loser of the social low class. That in the past years recruitment standards in the US have been massively lowered so to fill the opening gaps in the sufficient supply with "fresh meat", does not help to raise motivation. For more people than before, joining the military now simply is - a job. and quite some have not thoroughly thought about it - the aggressive recruiters you have in the US that even visit schools and can demand the datafiles of class members to adress them personally, adds another effect.

quite some people, due to lacking alternatives, join the military for the same reason why I did some underpayed, stressing bad jobs in my past, too (and I have had quite a variety of different jobs): because of needing money. that also many soldiers come back from their tour pretty much disillusionised, does not help to improve morale.

If that general is clever, he starts distributing condoms. :)

[Snestorm]

Yeah the womens movement fought for the right for women to enter the workplace. Now it's pretty much necessary for both parents to work just to make ends meet.

Yeah. And the kids are left to be indoctrinated by the PC controled state.

I like the old rules better:
If you can't afford to support her, you can't marry her.
And you'd better make damn certain not to get her pregnant!

[Snestorm]

If that general is clever, he starts distributing condoms. :)

Wrong!

[Ducimus]

Military hospital's have been distributing condoms for years. Problem is their really cheap and tend to break. They do make great oxyacetlyne bombs though. :D

The whole women's lib stuff will only go so far. The fact is, while in the military, you live under a completely different set of rules. You are, in effect, while under contract, US government property. If you engage in any avoidable behavior that will result in missing a movement, become undeployable, or otherwise result in a failure to perform your duty, they can slam you.

[Jimbuna]

Gotta agree...they signed up to serve their country and obey orders...not to have children and leave gaps in their units.

[Torvald Von Mansee]

Uh, you sign up for the military, you abide by their rules.

Also, women use the pregnancy "get out of harm" card all the time. You can't have your cake and eat it, too.

[Skybird]

Military hospital's have been distributing condoms for years. Problem is their really cheap and tend to break. They do make great oxyacetlyne bombs though. :D

The whole women's lib stuff will only go so far. The fact is, while in the military, you live under a completely different set of rules. You are, in effect, while under contract, US government property. If you engage in any avoidable behavior that will result in missing a movement, become undeployable, or otherwise result in a failure to perform your duty, they can slam you.

Government... property? You cannot mean that literally. That would be slavery, and would call all situations void and invalid that could be imagined where soldiers are not only free but maybe even have the duty to not carry out illegal orders.

[Torvald Von Mansee]

Gotta agree...they signed up to serve their country and obey orders...not to have children and leave gaps in their units.

I always thought it was stupid to put women on board combat ships. Can you imagine all the nasty soap opera drama on board a Nimitz class carrier which could screw w/its combat effectiveness?

[Platapus]

Government... property? You cannot mean that literally. That would be slavery, and would call all situations void and invalid that could be imagined where soldiers are not only free but maybe even have the duty to not carry out illegal orders.


Well not slavery but servitude and there is nothing illegal against servitude only involuntary servitude (with exceptions for the draft).

I was in the military for 20 years and yup, they owned my ass. Remember "Full Metal Jacket"?

"Your heart may belong to Jesus but your ass belongs to the corps!"

Not just a line from some movie, it is a tradition in the military.

They could make medical decisions for me as well as order me on suicide missions. I could be ordered to kill or be killed. I could be ordered to shoot my own troops and be ordered to be shot by my own troops.

If the military has that much authority over me, a little thing like court marshaling my ass for knocking up some GI so that she misses a deployment is small spuds.

People who are contemplating entering the military need to fully understand the contract they are signing. You voluntarily give up a lot of control that ordinary citizens enjoy.

You are not a piece of property to the military as property has value and can be hard to replace. You are, however, a resource to be used/expended to further national policy.

That's what makes the military a hard career and one not for everyone.

[Snestorm]

Government... property? You cannot mean that literally. That would be slavery, and would call all situations void and invalid that could be imagined where soldiers are not only free but maybe even have the duty to not carry out illegal orders.

He means it quite literaly.
One surrenders their constitutional rights upon entering the US Military.
Uniform Code of Military Justice prevails in all circumstances.

[Snestorm]

I always thought it was stupid to put women on board combat ships. Can you imagine all the nasty soap opera drama on board a Nimitz class carrier which could screw w/its combat effectiveness?

Agreed.

[CaptainHaplo]

Yes - property is the accurate term.

In fact, I happen to know one company commander that required any soldier to get his authorization before getting a tattoo. Reason was he had to approve the design supposedly, but I actually know it was because the post had a number of not so reputable shops, and some that were. He only made sure the guys went to a place that was clean.

On soldier blew that off - and served a non-judicial punishment under that beloved article - 15. Any former military member will know what an article 15 is. The official reasoning - destruction of military property.

[FIREWALL]

I' sure a dishonorable and all loss of benifits earned would put a halt to this.

[ETR3(SS)]

If you get a Dishonorable Discharge, you lose all benefits by default. Not to mention you can't work for any government contractor ever, that includes McDonalds.

[kiwi_2005]

Going slightly of topic here. I watched a documentary on Googlevideo other night - Operation Homecoming - Writing the wartime experience. A unique documentary about troops' experiences in Iraq and Afghanistan, based on writings by soldiers, Marines, and air men. Very cool and an eye opener. Didn't find it anti American or anti war just views on what soldiers thought.

[Rilder]

Yet more reason why those weak men should be banned from the military. :rotfl2:

Also if we mandated that all men and women in the military were gay we wouldn't have this problem.

[Tribesman]

So the General has had 4 soldiers getting pregnant and 4 soldiers who were already pregnant.
Big problem eh/

So since half of the problem is back home then what they must do is ban any female in the regular service or the reserve or national guard from getting pregnant just in case they end up getting deployed. After all as it is being sold as a matter of efficiency it has to aim for efficiency.

[MothBalls]

Government... property? You cannot mean that literally. That would be slavery, and would call all situations void and invalid that could be imagined where soldiers are not only free but maybe even have the duty to not carry out illegal orders.

Property is a perfect description. When you join the American Military, as others have mentioned, you do give up some rights and are subject to a different set of laws. One of those rights being double jeopardy. A civilian can only be charged for a crime once. As a military member, if you commit a civilian crime you can be tried in a civilian court, and then be tried again for the same crime by courts martial. I'm too lazy, but I'm sure you can google the enlistment contract. It's even a little worse for commissioned officers, with more authority and responsibility, more liability and accountability as well.

Back on topic, the general is correct. He has the authority to issue a direct order, telling female soldiers on deployment to not get pregnant [by disallowing any sexual relations] and it would be a lawful order. I agree with him. He has to maintain combat effectiveness and he can't do that reliably if he loses soldiers to pregnancy. They signed the contract, made the commitment, and should be expected to honor it.

[NeonSamurai]

Yeah the womens movement fought for the right for women to enter the workplace. Now it's pretty much necessary for both parents to work just to make ends meet.

Ya, course part of the problem there aside from lower overall wages is the amount of technology we have been brainwashed into thinking we need to buy for us and our kids. That is one of the key differences between now and 30 years ago.

I like the old rules better:
If you can't afford to support her, you can't marry her.
And you'd better make damn certain not to get her pregnant!

I for one don't like the old rules better, as there were a whole bunch of really awful laws and rules tied into it. Women deserve equal rights, opportunities, and payment, and full access to any job with the only possible exception to jobs which require a certain level of physical strength (I don't support lowered requirements in those cases). Besides it just doesn't work anymore, not if you want the lifestyle everyone in the west thinks they deserve and need.

Back on topic, the general is correct. He has the authority to issue a direct order, telling female soldiers on deployment to not get pregnant [by disallowing any sexual relations] and it would be a lawful order. I agree with him. He has to maintain combat effectiveness and he can't do that reliably if he loses soldiers to pregnancy. They signed the contract, made the commitment, and should be expected to honor it.

Well at least the general is going after both parties. Only issue I have is that the orders be equal. If women can't have sex then neither should men. Fair is fair right?

Oh and lastly never ever EVER rely on condoms as the sole method of birth control, they are one of the least effective methods out there and the failure rate is very high. They are great for STD protection though which has always been the key reason the military distributes them.

[SteamWake]

Your elected officals tend to disagree

http://abcnews.go.com/WN/general-backs-off-threat-court-martial-pregnant-soldiers/story?id=9399604

[Snestorm]

Your elected officals tend to disagree

http://abcnews.go.com/WN/general-backs-off-threat-court-martial-pregnant-soldiers/story?id=9399604

1: 4 elected officials does not qualify as "your elected officials".
2: They can do no more than make a request as the military falls under the exclusive control of The Executive Branch.
3: Is it wise to restructure an entire military to accomidate the 4% who are female?!

Again we see a vocal minority of women portraying themselves as representing the position of all women.

[SteamWake]

Well they aint my elected officals :O:

But yea who dident know this noise would be comming. I'll be interested how far it will go.

[ETR3(SS)]

Can we change the thread title to "Army General finds his balls and in record time loses them again"?:roll: I've about reached my boiling point with women and the military. I'm really beginning to think that every female that is a lobbyist, and the females in our government has every man in the government whipped. :damn: Not one of them has the balls to say "Wanna do the job? Good! Shut up, sit down, and follow the rules like everyone else!" :hulk:

[August]

1: 4 elected officials does not qualify as "your elected officials".
2: They can do no more than make a request as the military falls under the exclusive control of The Executive Branch.
3: Is it wise to restructure an entire military to accomidate the 4% who are female?!

Again we see a vocal minority of women portraying themselves as representing the position of all women.

Yep. The sad answer to all three of your points is: "The Democrats are in power and they don't really care about military efficiency".

[Torvald Von Mansee]

Yep. The sad answer to all three of your points is: "The Democrats are in power and they don't really care about military efficiency".

You got some source on that aside from your opinion?

[August]

You got some source on that aside from your opinion?

What, the opinion of a US military veteran who served during both Democratic and Republican administrations is not good enough for you? You'd prefer a link to some anonymous website instead?

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

Can we change the thread title to "Army General finds his balls and in record time loses them again"?:roll: I've about reached my boiling point with women and the military. I'm really beginning to think that every female that is a lobbyist, and the females in our government has every man in the government whipped. :damn: Not one of them has the balls to say "Wanna do the job? Good! Shut up, sit down, and follow the rules like everyone else!" :hulk:

Are you sure it wasn't "General fakes having balls?"

[ETR3(SS)]

That's more appropriate, I like it! :rotfl2:

[Ducimus]

Property is a perfect description. When you join the American Military, as others have mentioned, you do give up some rights and are subject to a different set of laws. One of those rights being double jeopardy. A civilian can only be charged for a crime once. As a military member, if you commit a civilian crime you can be tried in a civilian court, and then be tried again for the same crime by courts martial. .

Pretty much. In my unit we joked about the oath of enlistment.

"I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; and to give up my rights so these f*ckers in this crappy nation nobody cares about can have them instead"

Another wisecrack was to "issue" yourself by listing yourself by nonclamature like any other piece of equipment on various forms. After my last and first name, id write in something like, "SSgt type, 1 each".

These jokes, jokes though they may be, are not without reason. Which steers back to the original subject of this thread. :88)

[Stealth Hunter]

What, the opinion of a US military veteran who served during both Democratic and Republican administrations is not good enough for you? You'd prefer a link to some anonymous website instead?

Yeah actually. As far as I'm concerned, that is. Because opinions are never facts, no matter who's talking.

[August]

Yeah actually. As far as I'm concerned, that is. Because opinions are never facts, no matter who's talking.

Right because first hand knowledge is always less preferable than anonymous websites... :roll:

[Stealth Hunter]

Right because first hand knowledge is always less preferable than anonymous websites... :roll:

When you put it that way, combined with the fact that "first-hand knowledge" is based upon experience which differs from person to person despite how they like to personify what they have to offer (which isn't much in most cases; and for that matter how it's fudged from person to person to appease their thoughts and motivations), I'd call them equal with one another. Something as simple as an encyclopedia article (from someplace like Britannica, etc.) or an Associated Press story will do, thank you.

[Snestorm]

Right because first hand knowledge is always less preferable than anonymous websites... :roll:

This is something I always take note of.

Is the author/speaker presenting first hand knowledge, or a collection of other peoples' experiences? The former, from multiple sources, is my preference. The latter can be useful when time or sources are limitted. The latter can also be useful for the inclusion of information not available to first person accounts. But again, multiple first person accounts are the most reliable source of information.

[Tribesman]

When you put it that way,
When you put it that way it may have a modicum of relevance.
Otherwise it carrys as much weight as a hundredweight of cattle manure.

Right because first hand knowledge
Your knowledge is questionable and your perception of that "knowledge"is really open to question.
tell me again about Iraq or afghanistan ,(OK I had beter delete this bit as qustioning nonsense might be unseasonal)

[Stealth Hunter]

As far as first-hand accounts are concerned, for that matter eyewitness testimony (because they're basically the same thing), this article demonstrates why the testimony itself is not really a good source to rely upon alone- because of the human memory issue (not including the common social knowledge aspect of intentional dishonesty with testimony):

http://agora.stanford.edu/sjls/Issue%20One/fisher&tversky.htm

Another interesting article:

http://www.visualexpert.com/Resources/eyewitnessmemory.html

[August]

You people are amazing. :nope:

[Platapus]

2: They can do no more than make a request as the military falls under the exclusive control of The Executive Branch.

Not correct. cf the United States Constitution, specifically section 8 "Powers of Congress"

"To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces"

The chief of the Executive Branch (the President) is the Commander in Chief of the military forces. However the establishment of the rules for the military are not part of the Executive Branch but rest in the Legislative branch.

If these four congresshumans can garner enough support, they can overrule the General's order.

[Platapus]

What, the opinion of a US military veteran who served during both Democratic and Republican administrations is not good enough for you? You'd prefer a link to some anonymous website instead?

As long as this is recognized as your opinion as ONE US military veteran.

You do not speak for all US Veterans and specifically your opinion should not be construed as being the opinions of any other US veteran.

I don't think anyone is asking for a link to a website. However if you wish you opinion to be considered anything other than you personal opinion, an authoritative citation would be helpful in supporting your opinion that Democrats are not interested in military efficiency.

[August]

As long as this is recognized as your opinion as ONE US military veteran.

You do not speak for all US Veterans and specifically your opinion should not be construed as being the opinions of any other US veteran.

I never claimed it was anything but my opinion Platapus. Nor do I particularly care whether you or anyone else thinks it's a valid opinion or not.

[Snestorm]

Not correct. cf the United States Constitution, specifically section 8 "Powers of Congress"

"To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces"

Good post. You are right, and I stand corrected.
It's good to get chased back to the United States Constitution for an occasional a re-read.
So, in this instance, I shall also thank you for the motivational "kick in tail".

[XabbaRus]

Oh and lastly never ever EVER rely on condoms as the sole method of birth control, they are one of the least effective methods out there and the failure rate is very high.Neon, you sure?

Just done a quick wiki and typical usage puts a 15 to 20% failure rate. Perfect usage is down to 2%.

I suppose there will always be the guys who stick them over their thumbs or bananas.

[Jimbuna]

The bottom line is....if this General gets his way there won't be many guys in Iraq pulling a Christmas 'cracker' tomorrow :DL

[Stealth Hunter]

I never claimed it was anything but my opinion Platapus. Nor do I particularly care whether you or anyone else thinks it's a valid opinion or not.

You still haven't said it wasn't anything more than your opinion. Quite the opposite, actually, from your repeated insinuations.

[August]

You still haven't said it wasn't anything more than your opinion. Quite the opposite, actually, from your repeated insinuations.

:yeah:

[Stealth Hunter]

:06: