Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. Standard member Seitse
    Doug Stanhope
    20 Dec '09 08:36
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8422989.stm

    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.


    Ok, let's get this straight: if we put aside all the cheap sentimentalism of the
    brainwashed ones' patriotic mumbo jumbo, the truth is that soldiers are employees.
    They are civil servants who, instead of putting seals on documents or capturing
    social security numbers in a PC, happen to carry a gun and kill in the name of
    their employer...

    *************

    Dear readers,

    We make a brief interruption in order to allow our sponsors to share with you the
    following message:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fkuOAY-S6OY

    Thank you.


    *************

    ... so, is it correct to court martial a civil servant due to pregnancy?

    Discuss.
  2. Subscriber FMF
    a.k.a. John W Booth
    20 Dec '09 08:44 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by Seitse
    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.
    Al Qaeda must be sniggering at the sight of the U.S. military stretching itself so thin over a 'war of choice'.
  3. Standard member Seitse
    Doug Stanhope
    20 Dec '09 08:47
    Originally posted by FMF
    'war of choice'.
    I like this term. Yours?
  4. Subscriber FMF
    a.k.a. John W Booth
    20 Dec '09 09:44
    Originally posted by FMF
    'war of choice'.

    Originally posted by Seitse
    I like this term. Yours?
    I'm going to claim it is. At least until someone comes along and questions my gender.
  5. Standard member spruce112358
    Democracy Advocate
    20 Dec '09 11:07 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by Seitse
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8422989.stm
    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. ******

    ... so, is it correct to court martial a civil servant due to pregnancy?

    Discuss.
    You two are sniggering, but think of the moral quandry*!

    Could the soldier request a government-funded abortion to save her career? No, ivanhoe wouldn't hear of it. Why? It would kill an innocent life. But this soldier, in the course of doing her duty, might one day take an innocent life in the course of battle. That's OK -- collateral damage. But if we refuse her an abortion, now, she will not be able to do her job later, i.e. kill the enemy.

    So maybe we could allow a government-funded abortion and consider it a "civilian casualty"?

    * for US Army; I didn't look to see which this is.
  6. Subscriber Wajoma
    Die Cheeseburger
    20 Dec '09 11:37
    Matter of contract.

    The employer sets some terms.
    The employee sets some terms.

    If they agree they get together and exchange value for value.

    Nothing to see here folks, move along.
  7. Subscriber FMF
    a.k.a. John W Booth
    20 Dec '09 11:46
    Originally posted by Wajoma
    Matter of contract.

    The employer sets some terms.
    The employee sets some terms.

    If they agree they get together and exchange value for value.
    And if the employer changes the terms?
  8. Standard member Seitse
    Doug Stanhope
    20 Dec '09 12:24
    Originally posted by Wajoma
    Matter of contract.

    The employer sets some terms.
    The employee sets some terms.

    If they agree they get together and exchange value for value.

    Nothing to see here folks, move along.
    People with your feeble logic and organ-trafficker morals would do
    an excellent labor lawyer for the sweat shops in the Philippines.

    Hired!
  9. Subscriber Wajoma
    Die Cheeseburger
    20 Dec '09 12:36
    Originally posted by Seitse
    People with your feeble logic and organ-trafficker morals would do
    an excellent labor lawyer for the sweat shops in the Philippines.

    Hired!
    Making the jump from - my belief in the voluntary interaction between men and - organ trafficking is devoid of logic, feeble or otherwise.
  10. Standard member Seitse
    Doug Stanhope
    20 Dec '09 12:48
    Originally posted by Wajoma
    Making the jump from - my belief in the voluntary interaction between men and - organ trafficking is devoid of logic, feeble or otherwise.
    Ok, I will teach you a lesson, sonny boy.

    I am all for contracts and freedom of contracting, but just because something
    is in a contract it doesn't mean that it is correct. The labor laws of several civilized
    countries, for example, explicitly state that any covenant which contradicts the
    basic rights upheld by either the same piece of law or the basic laws are to be
    considered as void --penalties aside.

    This is because the State is there to protect human from screwing each other.
    Hence, here is a simple question and if you're smart you'll answer yes or no:

    Would you uphold in court a contract where a man promises another,
    in exchange for a fee, to become his slave?


    Simple question.
  11. Subscriber Wajoma
    Die Cheeseburger
    20 Dec '09 12:51
    Originally posted by Seitse
    Ok, I will teach you a lesson, sonny boy.

    I am all for contracts and freedom of contracting, but just because something
    is in a contract it doesn't mean that it is correct. The labor laws of several civilized
    countries, for example, explicitly state that any covenant which contradicts the
    basic rights upheld by either the same piece of law or the basic ...[text shortened]... a man promises another,
    in exchange for a fee, to become his slave?


    Simple question.[/b]
    Indeed a simple question from a simpleton.

    If the man chooses to enter into that contract he is not and cannot be a slave.

    c h o o s e s
  12. 20 Dec '09 13:42 / 2 edits
    Originally posted by Seitse
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8422989.stm
    [i]
    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. ******

    ... so, is it correct to court martial a civil servant due to pregnancy?

    Discuss.
    Oh that is not all. Now they are moving Al Qaeda combatants, who probably should have been hanged upon capture, to the states and treat them as US citizens. In the interim, US soldiers are being tried for court martial for capturing wanted enemy combatants simply on the grounds that the combatants had a "busted lip" and said they were "mistreated". Meanwhilse, as Obama and company are going out of their way to ensure that enemy combatants have due process, he flies drones over the battle field picking off random targets without due process.

    Crazy, huh?
  13. 20 Dec '09 13:49 / 2 edits
    Originally posted by Wajoma
    Indeed a simple question from a simpleton.

    If the man chooses to enter into that contract he is not and cannot be a slave.

    c h o o s e s
    BUt do you think most young kids read "the contract"? In fact, I have talked with many a recruiter, and I was never shown "a contract". In fact, most of what they tell you they won't put on paper because they know it is BS. For example, do you think that the navy seals who captured the Iraqi combatant who killed US soldiers and hung them on a bridge for public display, would ever face a court martial based on the premise that he had a fat lip and was "mistreated"? My question is, what if they had shot him? My guess is that all would have been OK.

    I have talked with several people in the armed forces recently who are pretty disgusted right now with the state of affairs in the military. I just hope they don't want children. Pretty soon they will be taking vows of celebacy like a priest or a nun.
  14. Subscriber FMF
    a.k.a. John W Booth
    20 Dec '09 13:54
    Originally posted by whodey
    BUt do you think most young kids read "the contract"? In fact, I have talked with many a recruiter, and I was never shown "a contract".
    But I'm sure they showed you the restraining order that they eventually obtained.
  15. 20 Dec '09 14:00
    Originally posted by FMF
    But I'm sure they showed you the restraining order that they eventually obtained.
    LOL. The other day I talked with a soldier who was having medical problems, so they are going to give him the boot via a medical discharge. In the interim, however, they are trying to trump up charges to kick him out sooner, so they don't have to pay for his medical. Nice, eh?