View Full Version : Pentagon urges a tobacco free military
Hosakawa Tito
07-11-2009, 14:12
I heard this one (http://www.usatoday.com/news/military/2009-07-09-smoking_N.htm) on the radio while at work yesterday. I'm not a smoker, and though I wish everyone could quit I'm a realist and can certainly sympathize with those working in a high stress environment. What I find most insulting about this proposal is the emphasis on "costs to the Pentagon budget", not the health of the soldiers. The Pentagon probably wastes more money than any US institution that we know about, but they're concerned about tobacco related costs to an all volunteer force. I find it hard to justify telling those that put their life on the line for us every day that they can't smoke if they want to. What's your verdict?
Banquo's Ghost
07-11-2009, 14:18
Leave them well alone. Soldiers need distractions.
Whilst I don't smoke, this constant attack on a small vice is disproportionate.
CountArach
07-11-2009, 14:24
I can definitely see the logic and I'm sure that not smoking would lead to a healthier and better average soldier... but something just seems... wrong about this? Can't quite place my finger on it.
rory_20_uk
07-11-2009, 14:26
The only way of replacing it would be if there as a good nicotine driven "inhaler" the troops could use.
~:smoking:
KukriKhan
07-11-2009, 14:31
Preposterous. Outrageous. Insulting. Wrong-Headed. Stupid. Ignorant.
Therefore, it'll probably go through.
Hosakawa Tito
07-11-2009, 14:48
Preposterous. Outrageous. Insulting. Wrong-Headed. Stupid. Ignorant.
Therefore, it'll probably go through.
There goes a man who understands how the military brass thinks & works all too well.
Veho Nex
07-11-2009, 15:52
There was a time when the military encouraged smoking.... Hey also some of the worlds oldest people smoke a pack to two packs a day. It was on some movie in science about old people.
Would never work.
Need I say more?
ICantSpellDawg
07-11-2009, 16:12
We demand that you live a long time!, now run into that firefight and get shot at. I sincerely believe that we will all be forced to wear helmets at some point in my lifetime. Soldiers can't even be trusted to make simple decisions about their own health.
Rhyfelwyr
07-11-2009, 19:10
The occassional cigarrette must be one of the few things a soldier can look forward to at the end of a hard days work, leave them alone.
Major Robert Dump
07-11-2009, 20:39
Just because soldiers won't like it, just because it will drive down troop retention, just because enforcing this and penalizing violators will be a nightmare and cause otherwise good soldiers to lose rank etc......doesn't mean that it won't take effect. Making the CONUS bases smoke-free would do plenty, but an outright ban on use aka the likes of marijuana would be a nightmare to enforce. Thats why it will probably happen.
Devastatin Dave
07-11-2009, 21:27
I absolutely LOVED smoking when I was in the military. This is dumb, so it will probably happen.
Atleast it won't affect the Navy, since they take care of their oral fixations on other things!!! Baaaazing!!!! Just kidding to all your Squid headed, Village People on boats!!!!
Hosakawa Tito
07-11-2009, 22:23
Perhaps they should have the desk jockeys replace the front line grunts while they're receiving training/treatment to kick their nicotine habit....
woad&fangs
07-11-2009, 22:25
Hehe, if this goes through I'd love to see the reaction the first time the CinC lights up on a military base:laugh4:
edit: although I hope this fails.
rotorgun
07-11-2009, 22:57
It wouldn't be the first time that our politicians used our military to practice social engineering. This especially happens almost every time we have a democratic majority. I currently smoke, although I had quit for something like twelve years. While I agree that there are legitimate health concerns, I still think it's a right for one to use tobacco. It's just one more reason that many feel that we are sliding ever faster down the slippery slope of socialism. I have just one word to describe such an effort by the administration-HYPOCRISY! :wall:
PS: I think I'll go burn one.~:pimp:
Atleast it won't affect the Navy, since they take care of their oral fixations on other things!!! Baaaazing!!!! Just kidding to all your Squid headed, Village People on boats!!!!
I have no idea what you're talking about.
https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v489/Lemurmania/activeduty.jpg
Adrian II
07-11-2009, 23:38
All Gregoshi needs is a smoking gun... :wink2:
Major Robert Dump
07-12-2009, 02:39
Yeah no kidding. This isn't the only travesty, either. The Obama administration is trying to push a pro-gays-in-the-military agenda as well. :no:
*The economy makes me want to stay in, but I don't think I'm ready for years of Obama's administration pushing a "let's screw up the Army" agenda.
Are u in Ft Sammy for training or is that your duty station?
Hooahguy
07-12-2009, 03:37
leve them alone. smoking is a huge stress reliever, or so i hear.
Hooahguy
07-12-2009, 03:46
whenever you see war movies you always see them smoking after a battle. seems to work.
Fisherking
07-12-2009, 08:40
The whole cost issue is also bogus!
Who has lung cancer or emphysema between 18 and 45. What are their costs?
If they die early in retirement, doesn’t that save money?
While a pack of cigarettes cost $0.50 to make and $0.50 profit the rest goes to government.
In the case of the military the extra money goes directly into their coffers since they were ordered to raise the price to the prevailing civilian price back in the early 1990s.
The impact on the troops is always ignored by people who don’t know what they have to deal with...
Devastatin Dave
07-12-2009, 09:28
The impact on the troops is always ignored by people who don’t know what they have to deal with...
Like the community organizer that is currently the Commander in Chief.:laugh4:
Funny no one is telling him to quit smoking...
HoreTore
07-12-2009, 11:16
Yeah no kidding. This isn't the only travesty, either. The Obama administration is trying to push a pro-gays-in-the-military agenda as well. :no:
Yeah, damn those equal rights....
Why can't some people just accept that they're not as human as we others?
Hooahguy
07-12-2009, 14:56
Yeah, damn those equal rights....
Why can't some people just accept that they're not as human as we others?
i think the dont ask dont tell policy was good enough. i would imagine thats its very nerve-wracking when you know ur buddy in your foxhole is gay.
Banquo's Ghost
07-12-2009, 15:02
i think the dont ask dont tell policy was good enough. i would imagine thats its very nerve-wracking when you know ur buddy in your foxhole is gay.
Well, you would imagine wrong.
I can't even begin to address the prejudice in this post without banning myself. Try to work it out for yourself using the analogy of say, a religious persuasion long considered outside the norm.
Ja'chyra
07-12-2009, 15:09
If they're old enough to die for us then they're old enough to decide for themselves if they want to smoke
CountArach
07-12-2009, 15:23
i think the dont ask dont tell policy was good enough. i would imagine thats its very nerve-wracking when you know ur buddy in your foxhole is gay.
What the hell? I mean seriously, what the hell!? Are you suggesting that gays are incapable of controlling their urges when in a combat zone or a professional situation?
Hooahguy
07-12-2009, 15:24
i never said that. but maybe the other guy doesnt think that he can, and will probably be a bit nervous.
CountArach
07-12-2009, 15:37
i never said that. but maybe the other guy doesnt think that he can, and will probably be a bit nervous.
Then shouldn't we be dispelling myths about gays?
HoreTore
07-12-2009, 15:39
i never said that. but maybe the other guy doesnt think that he can, and will probably be a bit nervous.
If so, he's a complete idiot. And complete idiots do not deserve sympathy, nor do they belong near guns. They should be made to complete the first grade instead.
Honestly, the notion that gay men are "incapable of controlling their urges" is the dumbest idea on the planet. Face it, with the exception that they love the same sex, gay people are just that, people. Just like me and you, there is no difference.
I'm heterosexual. Does that mean I can't be around women for protracted periods of time without raping them...? Does it mean that I will be hitting on lesbians, trying to convert them to straight women?
Women are allowed in the army. Why aren't they afraid that their foxhole-buddy is going to rape them? Why isn't that a problem to you, Hooahguy? Following your logic, you should be supporting an all-female army, shouldn't you?
Strike For The South
07-12-2009, 15:40
If you're nervous about a gay man next to you, should you be allowed to carry a gun? He's gay not a rapist.
I shouldn't work with women becuase I like b00bz.
Strike For The South
07-12-2009, 15:41
If so, he's a complete idiot. And complete idiots do not deserve sympathy, nor do they belong near guns. They should be made to complete the first grade instead.
Honestly, the notion that gay men are "incapable of controlling their urges" is the dumbest idea on the planet. Face it, with the exception that they love the same sex, gay people are just that, people. Just like me and you, there is no difference.
I'm heterosexual. Does that mean I can't be around women for protracted periods of time without raping them...? Does it mean that I will be hitting on lesbians, trying to convert them to straight women?
Women are allowed in the army. Why aren't they afraid that their foxhole-buddy is going to rape them? Why isn't that a problem to you, Hooahguy? Following your logic, you should be supporting an all-female army, shouldn't you?
I just said this in ten words. Silly Yuropeean
Hosakawa Tito
07-12-2009, 15:49
i think the dont ask dont tell policy was good enough. i would imagine thats its very nerve-wracking when you know ur buddy in your foxhole is gay.
Well, not to veer too far off topic, but as long as he's brave & doing his job that'd be good enough for me. Or, as a homosexual in Attica once said to me, "Just because I'm gay doesn't mean I want to :daisy: everybody's :daisy:."
Hooahguy
07-12-2009, 15:50
look, i never said that gays couldnt be in the military.
btw women arent allowed in combat. and women do feel scared because of rape. do you know how many women are raped in the military? a few years ago Time had an article on it. apparently lots are raped.
CountArach
07-12-2009, 16:09
look, i never said that gays couldnt be in the military.
Yes you did:
i think the dont ask dont tell policy was good enough. i would imagine thats its very nerve-wracking when you know ur buddy in your foxhole is gay.
If you support 'don't ask don't tell' you clearly think there is something wrong with openly gay people serving in the military.
Hooahguy
07-12-2009, 16:16
maybe you misunderstand me. or maybe i am misunderstanding the dont-ask-dont-tell policy.
im fine with someone being gay in the military. nothing wrong with being gay. i just dont feel a need for a gay soldier to tell everyone that he is gay. why would someone be openly gay in a society like that? so he can be a target for insults and other hateful behavior from people who are homophobic or bigoted in an atmosphere that capitalizes on closeness with your buddies.
being gay does not make anything better for someone in the military. so why make that person tell everyone he is gay?
Soldiers who want to stick burning tobacco in their mouths should be allowed that pleasure. No sane argument against that, no matter what Jack Smith, head of the Pentagon's office of clinical and program policy has to say.
Soldiers who want to stick other things in their mouths should be allowed that pleasure as well. Men who voluntarily put their lives on the line for us should be allowed any darn thing they like (within law and reason) to blow off steam.
Strike For The South
07-12-2009, 16:32
maybe you misunderstand me. or maybe i am misunderstanding the dont-ask-dont-tell policy.
im fine with someone being gay in the military. nothing wrong with being gay. i just dont feel a need for a gay soldier to tell everyone that he is gay. why would someone be openly gay in a society like that? so he can be a target for insults and other hateful behavior from people who are homophobic or bigoted in an atmosphere that capitalizes on closeness with your buddies.
being gay does not make anything better for someone in the military. so why make that person tell everyone he is gay?
Why tell everyone you're Jewish? In a socitey that is overwhelmingly evangelical christians why make yourself a target for bitinig racism?
HoreTore
07-12-2009, 16:46
btw women arent allowed in combat. and women do feel scared because of rape. do you know how many women are raped in the military? a few years ago Time had an article on it. apparently lots are raped.
So....
The answer is to ban men from the army, right?
And women aren't allowed in combat....? what the :daisy: is that? Either Hooahguy is completely wrong here, or the US army has some serious brain-issues...
Hooahguy
07-12-2009, 16:50
Why tell everyone you're Jewish? In a socitey that is overwhelmingly evangelical christians why make yourself a target for bitinig racism?
i dont tell everyone im jewish. the only reason why you guys know is that it happened to come up a while ago. seeing that most know now anyways, what the harm in putting it in my sig? they would only know because my dogtags would say.
And women aren't allowed in combat....? what the :daisy: is that? Either Hooahguy is completely wrong here, or the US army has some serious brain-issues...
since when are women allowed in combat situations in the US army?
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
07-12-2009, 16:55
So....
The answer is to ban men from the army, right?
And women aren't allowed in combat....? what the :daisy: is that? Either Hooahguy is completely wrong here, or the US army has some serious brain-issues...
Most Western militaries don't allow women in combat, there are a few notable exceptions.
HoreTore
07-12-2009, 17:04
Most Western militaries don't allow women in combat, there are a few notable exceptions.
Obviously we(Norway) are an exception then.
So what are the women supposed to do when they're under attack? Go to the kitchen and cook something...?:thumbsdown:
Hooahguy, the "don't ask don't tell"-policy isn't about people "telling everyone they're gay". The policy requires them to keep their personal lives away from everyone else. For example, they can forget having a boyfriend, as someone might see them together, and that's "telling". And don't tell me you can't understand why someone wants a relationship...
Hooahguy
07-12-2009, 18:45
Obviously we(Norway) are an exception then.
So what are the women supposed to do when they're under attack? Go to the kitchen and cook something...?:thumbsdown:
Hooahguy, the "don't ask don't tell"-policy isn't about people "telling everyone they're gay". The policy requires them to keep their personal lives away from everyone else. For example, they can forget having a boyfriend, as someone might see them together, and that's "telling". And don't tell me you can't understand why someone wants a relationship...
ooooo that makes sense then. well, now im against that policy. what a load of :daisy:
thanks for clearing it up. i just thought that it meant "ok you can be gay and have a relationship and function as a gay person outside of the base or wherever you are stationed but dont tell anyone."
Women are allowed in the army. Why aren't they afraid that their foxhole-buddy is going to rape them?
Well, but they are, I posted a topic about it a while ago, I think men should not be allowed in the army, their comrades in the foxholes might get scared. Can you imagine the emotional stress of having to share a foxhole with a man?! :inquisitive:
Banquo's Ghost
07-12-2009, 19:58
I'm as guilty as anyone for rising to the bait here, but I suggest we might do well to return to the original topic.
Thank you kindly
:bow:
Ja'chyra
07-12-2009, 21:08
The issue isn't gay rights, the issue is unit cohesion. At the very least, gays shouldn't be allowed in Combat units, for the same reason women aren't--it'll sow discord and hurt morale. Not to mention the gay person's life would be at serious risk. It's not pretty, but it's the truth--and the Army recognizes this.
Back on topic, it still seems like this is more of a scare than anything else. I really don't think the smoke-free-army dealio is going to go through.
Yep, those greeks never got anywhere because of all the man love.
Devastatin Dave
07-12-2009, 23:50
Just curious, how many of you attacking hoahguy have actually, voluntarily, served in the military?
CountArach
07-13-2009, 02:25
The issue isn't gay rights, the issue is unit cohesion. At the very least, gays shouldn't be allowed in Combat units, for the same reason women aren't--it'll sow discord and hurt morale. Not to mention the gay person's life would be at serious risk. It's not pretty, but it's the truth--and the Army recognizes this.
They said the same thing about Blacks.
CountArach
07-13-2009, 02:37
Look, this isn't a civil rights issue.
That's funny, because it sure seems like one to me.
Ever been in the Army? Ever even been through an Army barracks and talked to the soldiers? The vast majority are not exactly enlightened people. An openly gay infantryman would be dead in a week.
By that logic they should be dead now anyway. If there is as much hatred towards gays as there allegedly is now then surely they should be getting lynched in the streets/murdered all the time?
Now, you can either force it, and destroy countless units, or you can just keep gays out of the front line.
The unit will adapt. Again, it did when Blacks were able to serve with regular units.
I also think the whole "Gays are at risk, let's not put them in combat roles" to be incredibly patronising towards gays. I'm sure any Gay who is willing to serve openly would be well aware of the risk from his own side.
rotorgun
07-13-2009, 02:52
I could care less if the guy or gal next to me in a foxhole is gay or lesbian, as long as they are doing their job, and I don't have to tote their load as well as mine. (Unless I am having nicotine withdrawals, or it's before 9 AM and I haven't had my coffee yet!)
I think the Military needs to rethink it's outdated 18th century mindset, and get with reality. Just don't micromanage everything in the process, and that's exactly what this is. Some egg-headed, over college educated, analistic, :daisy:kissin' politician's back pocket idea. It's bad enough that we have to do their dirty work in Iraq and Afghanistan. Now they want to tells us how we must conform to the ideal image of the "healthy" American, when people such as they act in such a way as to make a Mafia Don look like a choirboy.
Whew...got that rant off my chest!:beatnik2:
PS: Thanks Gelatinous Cube for doing your bit with us. I'm sorry to hear you were injured. If there is any way I can help, please PM me. Praying for you Bro! You also have a point there about Infantry units that I hadn't considered. You may be right.
rotorgun
07-13-2009, 03:29
Here him! Here him! He's right, we should discuss this in another thread. It's just that this kind of topic always opens up so many cans of worms. I do agree, on second thought, having served in line infantry outfits in my former glory days before I became an aircraft maintenance FOBBIT.
Well...on to the anti-anti smoking agenda! :yes:
HoreTore
07-13-2009, 06:54
Just curious, how many of you attacking hoahguy have actually, voluntarily, served in the military?
*raises his hand*
@Gelatinous cube: gays aren't allowed in combat u8nits for the same reason women aren't allowed? Well... Women are allowed in every unit here, and that works wonderfully. In fact, the army here is pushing to get even more women in the army....
But hey, prejudice is fun too.
I could care less if the guy or gal next to me in a foxhole is gay or lesbian, as long as they are doing their job, and I don't have to tote their load as well as mine. (Unless I am having nicotine withdrawals, or it's before 9 AM and I haven't had my coffee yet!)
There is your proof!
Ban nicotine and coffee and guys like rotorgun will even carry their comrades' stuff around!
~;)
rotorgun
07-14-2009, 04:44
There is your proof!
Ban nicotine and coffee and guys like rotorgun will even carry their comrades' stuff around!
~;)
LOL! :laugh4: Not if their rucksacks are as full of horse manure as you are Husar, you old...:daisy:kopf! You are my favorite German, did you know that? :beam:
Centurion1
07-21-2009, 16:31
I thought smoking wasn't allowed on duty. For instance when my dad was an s-3 pilot back in well from 70's to the 90's and they smoked as soon as they were out of the plane. My father would never have smoked if he hadn't joined the military.
Now that's fine because it is his choice and i cant imagine going through OCS or Flight School or Basic without some sort of stress reliever. Everyone back then smoked.
The brass is retarded if they think that by removing smoking they get rid of nicotine. My cousin was a ringer (went to west point), and they all CHEW :laugh4:. He said the only reason he got through ranger school was because of chaw. And the stress it relieved in Afghanistan was a life-saver according to him. I dont care what they do but what they are trying to do is revoke soldiers rights and do you really want to piss off the folks defending you....
You guys do know this is a dead issue (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090716/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_military_smoking), right?
Pentagon won't ban war-zone smoking, despite study
WASHINGTON – Smoke 'em if you got 'em. The Pentagon reassured troops Wednesday that it won't ban tobacco products in war zones. Defense officials hadn't actually planned to eliminate smoking — at least for now. But fear of a ban arose among some troops after the Defense Department received a study recommending the military move toward becoming tobacco-free — perhaps in about 20 years.
Press secretary Geoff Morrell pointedly told a Pentagon news conference that Defense Secretary Robert Gates is not planning to prohibit the use of cigarettes, chewing tobacco or other tobacco products by troops in combat.
"He knows that the situation they are confronting is stressful enough as it is," Morrell said, noting the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. "I don't think he is interested in adding to the stress levels by taking away one of the few outlets they may have to relieve stress."
I thought smoking wasn't allowed on duty. For instance when my dad was an s-3 pilot back in well from 70's to the 90's and they smoked as soon as they were out of the plane. My father would never have smoked if he hadn't joined the military.
Smoking would never be allowed on flights (at least in a crew cabin) due to the oxygen supply system.
Anyhoo, Gates has said that it will not ban smoking for the troops. Smart move, since the effects of nicotine withdrawal would probably increase the civilian casualty rate.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/07/15/us.military.smoking/index.html?iref=newssearch
Edit-> Gah! Beaten by the prosimian
Centurion1
07-21-2009, 16:59
Smoking would never be allowed on flights (at least in a crew cabin) due to the oxygen supply system.
no i understand that. but when he landed on the aircraft carrier and left his jet he lit up. i am saying that now it is contra to smoke while on duty in any capacity. I think so, it may just be the navy though. (vaguely remember hearing about a smoke-free navy)
Oh and lemur i know its dead but i thought it was still a good topic..... (its not dead in my heart)
Centurion1
07-24-2009, 02:45
Affirmative, But i believe what this new regulation was intending to do was ban smoking even when Soldiers were off duty, so on leave, at home with their families, etc.
Centurion1
07-24-2009, 15:07
Ugh, i hate UA tests, i have to take my DODMERB next week and they make you pee in front of the doctor to make sure you don't switch out the pee. I have trouble peeing in front of people........
Prodigal
07-24-2009, 15:37
This one is rather tricky, I can't speak for the US, but the UK has a covenant that is much overlooked by those who reap the rewards from it:
Soldiers will be called upon to make personal sacrifices - including the ultimate sacrifice - in the service of the Nation. In putting the needs of the Nation and the Army before their own, they forego some of the rights enjoyed by those outside the Armed Forces.
In return, British soldiers must always be able to expect fair treatment, to be valued and respected as individuals, and that they (and their families) will be sustained and rewarded by commensurate terms and conditions of service.
In the same way the unique nature of military land operations means that the Army differs from all other institutions, and must be sustained and provided for accordingly by the Nation.
This mutual obligation forms the Military Covenant between the Nation, the Army and each individual soldier; an unbreakable common bond of identity, loyalty and responsibility which has sustained the Army throughout its history. It has perhaps its greatest manifestation in the annual commemoration of Armistice Day, when the Nation keeps covenant with those who have made the ultimate sacrifice, giving their lives in action.
Army Doctrine Publication Volume 5
Considering this it is fair that service personnel abide by the rules should the military chose to impose them, "they forego some of the rights enjoyed by those outside the Armed Forces"
However, the idea that overnight any military can be turned into a "smoke free" zone is preposterous, in which case what of the smokers? Do they have to go outside to smoke? And what happens when people are killed by mortars, or snipers, or any one of the fatal or crippling things that can happen, because they had to go outside? Isn't that the ultimate breach of covenant?
Edit for an off Topic Rage against the UK Government:
From my perspective the British forces have had the covenant broken by our government. How can any government, except in times of the most dire need, send troops into combat without the very best equipment that their country can afford?
This month has seen a record number of British soldiers killed, and the month is not over yet.
How can any war be embarked upon unless it has the full weight of the nation, its peoples, and economy, behind the action?
What is worth more? Bailing out a failed bank, or saving the lives of the men & women that we send to fight; regardless of the cause.
Losing savings or a home is a terrible thing, but it should not ever be balanced against a persons life.
Prodigal
07-24-2009, 19:39
You already have to go outside to smoke, heh. Even in Iraq, we were on this crappy little post the size of a Football field, with some seriously ramshackle living quarters, and we still got reamed if we smoked inside.
Honestly...Do you not feel that is endangering your life more than passive smoking? Its simply not right, on so many fundemental levels its bodering on the insane, I can only think of one reason to ban smoking, & that is when the majority of the personel stop smoking, but even then...
And Cube if you're in a war zone, ffs stop smoking outside & get some stuff off the Gurkahs, they have muuuuch better than ciggies.
Pluses include, keeping your head under cover, and not producing extra heat or light while providing a nice dicersion.
And JellyCube...Just keep your head down, OK?
Ibn-Khaldun
07-24-2009, 21:46
Buying cigarettes = waste of money.. :smash:
HoreTore
07-25-2009, 00:23
Well, depends on what you do. You generally can't smoke in Vehicles or Buildings in the Army. Heck, here at Ft. Sam there are very specific designated smoking areas, and you'll get a reaming if you smoke anywhere else. And it's army-wide that you shouldn't walk and smoke at the same time if you're in uniform.
So you know, it's not exactly restriction free as it is.
I think that one is quite standard. At least it's the same situation here in Norway-land.
I don't think it's a health issue though, I think it's got more to do with discipline and appearances. Kinda like always having your hat/helmet/cap/beret on if you venture outside a building....
rotorgun
07-27-2009, 01:39
It's all a bunch of chicken:daisy: to me. That the brass is even entertaining such notions when there is certainly much more important things to attend to, such as...oh I don't know, maybe...
Winning the War!
The idiots in Washington really need to get a life. I mean we are in the greatest economic crisis in history since the great depression, in debt up to our keesters, fighting in two different countries with a third in the offing, and this is all that the politicos can ponder? Please Homer, spare me!
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.