Army General Makes Pregnancy Punishable Offense in Iraq

[August]

Originally Posted by Snestorm

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]

Originally Posted by August

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]

Originally Posted by Torvald Von Mansee

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]

Originally Posted by ETR3(SS)

Can we change the thread title to "Army General finds his balls and in record time loses them again"? 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. 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!"

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

[ETR3(SS)]

That's more appropriate, I like it!

[Ducimus]

Originally Posted by MothBalls

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.

[Stealth Hunter]

Originally Posted by August

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]

Originally Posted by Stealth Hunter

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...

[Stealth Hunter]

Originally Posted by August

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

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.

Originally Posted by August

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

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.

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...er&tversky.htm

Another interesting article:

http://www.visualexpert.com/Resource...essmemory.html

[August]

You people are amazing.

[Platapus]

Originally Posted by Snestorm

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]

Originally Posted by August

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.