http://www.allhatnocattle.net/soldier%20cat.jpg

http://cache.daylife.com/imageserve/0gQZ1mAbg01JW/610x.jpg

"During the first quarter of 2005, The HSUS heard from many service members in Iraq, seeking intervention in the fate of rescued animals, mostly dogs, in danger of being confiscated and killed by military authorities. Soldiers confirmed that the U.S. government had hired contractors to kill dogs found on American bases in Iraq. Some military units were also ordered to shoot animals on sight."

"..those who breach the policy on pets face the threat of serious punishment, including reduction in rank and court-martial."

http://www.hsus.org/pets/pets_related_news_and_events/enemies_of_the_state.html

WTF !? :mad:

Spies.

Could be infested with terrorist fleas or worse yet a bomb has been injested and will go off when the animal deems it should....NOT! :(

Poo warfare.

Sigh.. :(

The reason could be because the animals may be diseased. Dogs do carry rabies for example.

Still a sick situation though.

The reason could be because the animals may be diseased. Dogs do carry rabies for example.

Still a sick situation though.

Terror dogs! The scourge of the Army! :eek:

The reason could be because the animals may be diseased. Dogs do carry rabies for example.

Still a sick situation though.

No, this concerns mascots and rescued animals that are made into pets, and the reason for killing them is "prejudicial to the maintenance of good order and discipline of all forces". Give me a fucking break ! :mad:

What about a little humanity amidst the chaos.. ?
Eh.. humanity. Yea right..

Also from the article: "But Americans, be they in Baghdad, Beaufort, Billings, or Boston, all know the same truth. The bond between humans and animals does not compromise character or morale. It enhances them."

No, this concerns "..dogs of war, pets and mascots of American soldiers who have rescued and cared for animals trapped in the chaos and tumult of human conflict", and the reason for killing them is "prejudicial to the maintenance of good order and discipline of all forces". Give me a fucking break ! :mad:

What about a little humanity amids the chaos.. ?
Eh.. humanity. Yea right..

Also from the article: "But Americans, be they in Baghdad, Beaufort, Billings, or Boston, all know the same truth. The bond between humans and animals does not compromise character or morale. It enhances them."

Can you be surprised though?

The entire country has been destroyed, animals are just collateral damages.

http://img393.imageshack.us/img393/1855/destroyedsectionsofnajaew6.jpg

http://www.phlytopia.net/pics/iraq/najaf/Destroyed%20Sections%20of%20Najaf%20(2).JPG

Entire.

Can you be surprised though?

You're right, I shouldn't be surprised. But somehow I am, time and time again..

The entire country has been destroyed, animals are just collateral damages.

http://img393.imageshack.us/img393/1855/destroyedsectionsofnajaew6.jpg

http://www.phlytopia.net/pics/iraq/najaf/Destroyed%20Sections%20of%20Najaf%20(2).JPG

Of course, and all those innocent little kids that are blown to pieces are also just collateral damage.

Remote detonation:shrug:

Its all a result of American paranoia. Our government is instilling intense paranoia in all of us. Everywhere we look, we're being given reason to be paranoid.
"Everybody is out to get you."
That is the motto of this country.

Remote detonation:shrug:

Its all a result of American paranoia. Our government is instilling intense paranoia in all of us. Everywhere we look, we're being given reason to be paranoid.
"Everybody is out to get you."
That is the motto of this country.

Actually, that's the motto of humanity.

No, this concerns mascots and rescued animals that are made into pets, and the reason for killing them is "prejudicial to the maintenance of good order and discipline of all forces". Give me a fucking break ! :mad:

What about a little humanity amidst the chaos.. ?
Eh.. humanity. Yea right..

You are forgetting that this is happening in a war. Where -

Also from the article: "But Americans, be they in Baghdad, Beaufort, Billings, or Boston, all know the same truth. The bond between humans and animals does not compromise character or morale. It enhances them."

character and morale must be kept within a certain range.

If soldiers were allowed regular contact with animals, such as having them as pets -see those lovely kitties? the soldiers get all lovey dovey around them-, this would likely sway their morality and lead them to think it is wrong to go to war - so they would revolt or desert the army. The army cannot afford that.

Actually, that's the motto of humanity.

True, but it is so pervasive here. I didn't pick that up in Holland when I was there. At least not to the extent that I feel it here. Then again, that was nine years ago. Maybe its changed.:shrug:

You are forgetting that this is happening in a war. Where -



character and morale must be kept within a certain range.

If soldiers were allowed regular contact with animals, such as having them as pets -see those lovely kitties? the soldiers get all lovey dovey around them-, this would likely sway their morality and lead them to think it is wrong to go to war - so they would revolt or desert the army. The army cannot afford that.

Yea right.. it's a phenomenon of all ages Green. 'Soldier saves pet' is not exactly unheard of.
And I didn't forget that it happened in a war.
Btw. it almost looks like you are replying to the opposite of what you quoted.. (?)

True, but it is so pervasive here. I didn't pick that up in Holland when I was there. At least not to the extent that I feel it here. Then again, that was nine years ago. Maybe its changed.:shrug:

It's just that Bush has broken the veil, so it's ugly head is showing. The veil is thin, very thin.

They should cook them

http://img91.imageshack.us/img91/9964/00egyas4hv2.jpg

...

...

"During the first quarter of 2005, The HSUS heard from many service members in Iraq, seeking intervention in the fate of rescued animals, mostly dogs, in danger of being confiscated and killed by military authorities. Soldiers confirmed that the U.S. government had hired contractors to kill dogs found on American bases in Iraq. Some military units were also ordered to shoot animals on sight."

"..those who breach the policy on pets face the threat of serious punishment, including reduction in rank and court-martial."

http://www.hsus.org/pets/pets_related_news_and_events/enemies_of_the_state.html

WTF !? :mad:

So? Have some perspective here. I love animals as much as anyone, but the country is in chaos, untold thousands of Iraqis are dead, millions just left, human heads and headless bodies turn up all the time. No one has resources to care about an animal, much less tolerate a non-working animal at an army base.

So? Have some perspective here. I love animals as much as anyone, but the country is in chaos, untold thousands of Iraqis are dead, millions just left, human heads and headless bodies turn up all the time. No one has resources to care about an animal, much less tolerate a non-working animal at an army base.

And what kind of resources would it take to care ? :bugeye:
Don't you think it's a bit unnecessary to go around shooting up these poor animals.
They suffered every bit as much as the humans did :mad:

The animal population in Iraq is really fucked up. Imagine a trailer park the size of Texas that is teeming with animal life absent any sort of control agency. In rural areas, packs of wild dogs roam the roadways poking through trash, attacking anything that comes within a dozen meters almost without fail. In the cities, feral cat colonies grow so large that a half dozen dead cats turn up almost every single day in the area of a few blocks (from starvation, disease, etc.)

The standing order to kill feral animals exists as a force protection measure. Military personnel are not vaccinated for the plethora of diseases that feral animals often carry. As such, when your average rifleman takes a piss break, also stops to pet a rabid cat and gets bit, he's going to be pulled off the line and sent to a regional medical center for a significant amount of time so he can be treated and evaluated for disease and/or infection. The remainder of his team is going to be left without a man, and their functionality (and personal safety) will be compromised because of it. (Not to mention the mission at hand.) The only solution that can avoid this situation is population control. It is nice to live in the land of no-kill shelters, but not everybody gets that luxury.

So? Have some perspective here. I love animals as much as anyone, but the country is in chaos, untold thousands of Iraqis are dead, millions just left, human heads and headless bodies turn up all the time. No one has resources to care about an animal, much less tolerate a non-working animal at an army base.
I understand what you are saying, but that is easier said than done. People seem to have a sympathy for animals that can leave little for their own species. Shortly after the march up to Baghdad, (May '03) my platoon was helping a few Iraqi police officers respond to a bank robbery complaint. The police had been sent to the house of some guy the bank owner had said knew something about the robbery. We stayed outside since our ROE at the time said we couldn't do law enforcement type stuff, only direct action against elements of the former regime.

During the time the police were in this guy's house questioning him, there was a dog out front that was straining on its leash, barking and snarling at all of us. It looked like all the other feral dogs we'd seen chasing us and eating Fedayeen corpses all during the push into the country during the previous three weeks, but this one was clearly the guy's pet. Cujo must've had some serious retard strength, because eventually all his straining snapped the leash and he came charging across the street toward our column of vehicles. I watched him come without much concern. We'd all dealt with the wild dogs on the way up from Kuwait. While shooting them was a valid option, a swift boot to whatever body part presented itself had always proved sufficient to send one packing. Besides, Marines have an affection for dogs - the more aggressive the better - and many of mine regarded the feral packs with hints of affection. That day, though, we had a Navy doctor with us because we were for humanitarian relief in addition to combat. My platoon had been together for close to a year by this point, and many of us had served together in Afghanistan in 2001-2002. We were very close, and everything we'd been through since leaving the line of departure in Kuwait had cemented us even further. But this doctor had just come out with us today. None of us knew him. The dog charged straight for him, and right as I was thinking the dog must've sensed the one pogue among us, I heard the pop of a 9mm pistol.

I jumped out of the passenger's seat of my Humvee and ran toward the sound of the gunshot just in time to see the dog limping away, holding one of its front legs off the ground, with blood pouring from somewhere near its chest. Within half a minute it was swaying back and forth drunkenly, and in another half minute it had collapsed on the ground. We all stood there silently watching it, nobody really knowing what to do. If some Fedayeen had been scoping an ambush just then, they could've caught us completely unaware and wiped us all out. That's how shocking a sight it was. Here we were, about thirty combat-hardened Marines that had spent the last month wading through all kinds of death and destruction on our way north, seeing and doing all kinds of terrible things we'd later try to forget, and what floors us? A dog. To this day, seeing that dog get shot comes to mind as one of the things I really wish I could un-see more than a surprising amount of others.

Finally, one of the guys walked over to the dog and tried to see if it was still alive, but by then the police and their suspect had come out of the house after hearing the gunshot. The poor guy whose dog it was looked about 60 and was as frail as a bird. He ran out into the street and collapsed over the animal's corpse, sobbing. Right about then I heard "MOTHER FUCKER!" followed by a heavy thud. One of my corporals, a big beefy machine gunner who we called Terminator due to his physique and characteristic deadpan demeanor, had grabbed the doc by his MOLLE vest and slammed him against the side of a Humvee. I ran over along with the platoon sergeant to break it up, but not before the CPL landed a few solid blows on the guy, the latter a powerful hook to his jaw. A bunch of us pulled him off and cooled him down. The doc was ripshit, holding his face and yelling about how he knew a JAG attorney that would rake him over the coals at a court martial, and a bunch of other stuff that sounded like whiney bullshit to the rest of us. He yelled at me too, trying to critique the command climate of my platoon, and I did everything I could not to throttle him myself. Before we left, I gave the Iraqi man the entire wad of dinars I had on my person for discretionary spending (usually used to pay interpreters, informants, people whose doors you kick in at 0300, etc.) which amounted to roughly $500. Several of the guys in my platoon tried to pay him in US dollars too, but were turned down.

A few weeks later, the CPL that smacked the doc around ended up going in front of the battalion CO at office hours (nonjudicial punishment) and getting assigned some bullshit extra duty, like cleaning the shitters every day for a month. It was a vanishingly small punishment for his crime (the doc was the same rank as our CO was) but the entire goddamn platoon showed up at office hours to be "character witnesses". I also wrote a letter to our CO explaining that we were all stressed out from the invasion, cranky from lack of showers/sleep/sex/good food/etc. and a few other excuses. In retrospect, every single one of us thought the doc deserved an assbeating and many of us wished we could've done it.

I'm not sure why people seem to regard animals' lives as so sacred, even to the point where they seem to be worth more than another human's. I think it is because most people perceive them as utterly incapable of doing any wrong. They're like children, only furry and even less annoying.

Christ-- what's with all you service people and the long fucking wind?

Blah, blah, blah..........................booga booga boo......Finally, one of the guys walked over to the dog and tried to see if it was still alive, but by then the police and their suspect had come out of the house after hearing the gunshot. The poor guy whose dog it was looked about 60 and was as frail as a bird. He ran out into the street and collapsed over the animal's corpse, sobbing. Right about then I heard "MOTHER FUCKER!" followed by a heavy thud. One of my corporals, a big beefy machine gunner who we called Terminator due to his physique and characteristic deadpan demeanor, had grabbed the doc by his MOLLE vest and slammed him against the side of a Humvee. I ran over along with the platoon sergeant to break it up, but not before the CPL landed a few solid blows on the guy, the latter a powerful hook to his jaw. A bunch of us pulled him off and cooled him down. The doc was ripshit, holding his face and yelling about how he knew a JAG attorney that would rake him over the coals at a court martial, and a bunch of other stuff that sounded like whiney bullshit to the rest of us. He yelled at me too, trying to critique the command climate of my platoon, and I did everything I could not to throttle him myself. Before we left, I gave the Iraqi man the entire wad of dinars I had on my person for discretionary spending (usually used to pay interpreters, informants, people whose doors you kick in at 0300, etc.) which amounted to roughly $500. Several of the guys in my platoon tried to pay him in US dollars too, but were turned down
Translation: we tried compensating for dog, and what the fuck is a 'ripshit'?

Anyway, don't give me cant about standing orders to kill feral animals being a "protection measure" because that's pigshit--when's the last time anyone in that little platoon of yours got rabies?
Worms?
Died of fleas, ticks, Parvo, Brucellosis?

A little statistic for you: deaths in the U.S. forces since the start of the war is upwards of 8,000 and this does not include the thousand other injuries resulting in honorable discharges, while the Iraqi body count soars to over 80,000:


The Iraq Body Count (IBC) figure of 80,419 to 87,834 civilian deaths reported in English-language media (including Arabic media translated into English) up to 10 January 2008 includes civilian deaths due to coalition and insurgent military action, sectarian violence and increased criminal violence. The IBC site states: "it should be noted that many deaths will likely go unreported or unrecorded by officials and media."[12] For the 4th year of the war between 20 March 2006 and 16 March 2007 the Iraq Body Count reported approximately 26,540 civilian deaths.
Source (”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_conflict_in_Iraq_since_2003#U.S. _armed_forces”)

All due to either military or insurgent action.

The only feral dog you must fear is the underpaid moron from Ignorance, Kansas-- he's a closet misanthrope like everyone else on the planet that's been exposed to humanity; he'd kill an Arab without flinching but choke up if his poor dog gets a fucking pimple.

You all hate each other but lie in the name of 'respect', savages in a bitter war for supremacy, and if you dare think I'm only speaking of Iraq or some other national gimmick I'm not-- look around you.

This place is filled with "compassionate" "respectable" forum members in a vicious war over something as stupid as quantum theories on mucus or Horseshoe crab turd soap.

You’ll call each other a smorgesboard of ugly names , yet Gendanken is the ‘evil’ moderator who covered the whole fora in shit??

These two boys killed a puppy by baking it in an oven:
Two teenage brothers are accused of breaking into a community center at an apartment complex last month, bringing with them a five-month-old puppy.

The brothers, ages 17 and 18, allegedly removed two shelves from a commercial gas range, put the puppy in and turned on the gas.

Authorities say the teens, who lived at the apartment complex, also destroyed computers and defaced walls at the center.
Source (http://www.11alive.com/news/news_article.aspx?storyid=84347)
And I have no qualms saying I would, given the clear, break every bone in their body and boil them alive in a vat filed with my piss and sulfuric acid.

The majority of humanity, on the other hand, doesn't outright say this despite that they secretly think it-- they’ll say they need ‘help’ or attack the parents, send them off to some institution or put them on Ritalin.

So alienated from each other has the human become that he'll spend billions on his pets every year, dressing them up in Tuxedos and Gucci, trying desperately to find in dog breath what he will never find in his lover's.
Not to mention that a dog is a stupid, groveling idiot who'll never question his stupidity, never make him feel small or inadaquate, never pose the threat to his ego that a human is.


This is why America's all outraged to hear a puppy's been killed in Iraq, yet barely flinch that hundreds of Iraqi or Afghani children are killed just the same.
You can't say the sudden compassion is that puppies are "innocent"--children are seen the same way.

"Hell is other people". We all hate each other, my dears, and this includes Tessie.

Vive le hate!

animals can be used as weapons, in war there is no price maximum to pay for

How is one used as a weapon?

Don't just pop in here regurgitating lines.

How is one used as a weapon?

Don't just pop in here regurgitating lines.

How are animals used as weapons? :bugeye:

Dolphins for example are used by military to gather intelligence...in some cases to carry detonation device and blow up enemy ships (Iran)

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/da/NMMP_dolphin_with_locator.jpeg/499px-NMMP_dolphin_with_locator.jpeg

So?

They've also attempted using bees and pigeons.

Why? Because they're virtually undetectable-- one underwater and the others so inconspicuous they're taken for granted.

These dogs and cats, on the other hand, are strays wandering through the country and they're being order shot on sight.

How, I'll ask again, are they being used as weapons?

Come on, asshole!! I can't sleep.

Answer

Come on, *******!! I can't sleep.

Answer

I don't want you to sleep tonight.

In strategy of war...anything is a weapon. Yes they are used as a weapon, they take away attention of soldiers when they should be focusing at killing rebels.

This is why America's all outraged to hear a puppy's been killed in Iraq, yet barely flinch that hundreds of Iraqi or Afghani children are killed just the same.
You can't say the sudden compassion is that puppies are "innocent"--children are seen the same way.

"Hell is other people". We all hate each other, my dears, and this includes Tessie.

Vive le hate!

Because the Mum's and Dad's back home watching their evening news with their kids don't associate or connect to little brown faces shown on the TV. Show a puppy or kitten being killed however and they instantly see the similarities with Poochy or Princess sitting in their laps.

Shite. Have we really gotten that out of whack with reality ?
People are dying. And we give more shits about animals than humans.
Fuck this shit.

Shite. Have we really gotten that out of whack with reality ?
People are dying. And we give more shits about animals than humans.
Fuck this shit.

its Enmos...who cares more for animals than humans.

Bells raised a good point with the sympathy thing. Sorta makes it more twisted, that we don't care about deformed babies, but we care about dead cats.

Bells raised a good point with the sympathy thing. Sorta makes it more twisted, that we don't care about deformed babies, but we care about dead cats.

Not all people are the same...not everywhere are families...

Not all people are the same...not everywhere are families...

But a majority are. Have we lost the ability to connect with a fellow human ? Or are we so desensitized that we must resort to pictures of dead animals, in order to stirr some sympathy amongst our $9.95 metal heart ?

But a majority are. Have we lost the ability to connect with a fellow human ? Or are we so desensitized that we must resort to pictures of dead animals, in order to stirr some sympathy amongst our $9.95 metal heart ?

well my heart is made out of...who knows what...so I just wouldn't know. For one thing, when I see dead animals in field of war...I see them much lower status than if I saw a dead human in field of war...and that's for sure. But to me, in order to stay sane in times as this...one needs to accept everything as it is, no mercy.

For one thing, when I see dead animals in field of war...I see them much lower status than if I saw a dead human in field of war
Strangely I think this is true for most of us but an injured or traumatised animal still provokes an intense emotional response. The big eyes and the fur play a part, but I think the main hold they have over us is that they're dumb. They can't say "Oh my God, I've been shot, I'm bleeding" but can only articulate their pain in blood-curdling yelps. The trauma for us, the sense of helplessness, lies in this gap between what they feel and what they can tell us.

Which still doesn't explain why injured animals shock us more than injured babies, who are similarly unable to articulate (no gendanken, it's not because we're all misanthropists - look deeper, deeper, past your own reflection). I think maybe it's because we know what human pain feels like, but not how it feels to be a mutilated cat or a dying dog.

Strangely I think this is true for most of us but an injured or traumatised animal still provokes an intense emotional response. The big eyes and the fur play a part, but I think the main hold they have over us is that they're dumb. They can't say "Oh my God, I've been shot, I'm bleeding" but can only articulate their pain in blood-curdling yelps. The trauma for us, the sense of helplessness, lies in this gap between what they feel and what they can tell us.

Which still doesn't explain why injured animals shock us more than injured babies, who are similarly unable to articulate (no gendanken, it's not because we're all misanthropists - look deeper, deeper, past your own reflection). I think maybe it's because we know what human pain feels like, but not how it feels to be a mutilated cat or a dying dog.

For one, I don't think this is true for all people. There are people -many even- who feel more hurt over seeing an injured human than an injured animal.

I think a possible reason for feeling more sympathy with an injured animal than an injured human is that we tend to presume that animals do not have evil intentions, but that humans do. As such, animals seem innocent per default, and we tend to have sympathy for the innocent.

What supports this is also the way some of us tend to view people with Down's Syndrome or some other debilitating disease: Walk down the street and hear someone calling "Idiot!" after you. You first get angry, turn around, but when you see it was a Down's Syndrome person who called you that, your anger dissipates. If it was a normal person, you'd still be angry and seek revenge.

I never said anywhere that I care more for animals than for humans.. what about as much ? What's wrong with that ?
Tell me why a human suffers more in war than a pet..

Tell me why it's ok to slaughter innocent animals, while it's not ok to slaughter innocents humans.
Tell me.

I never said anywhere that I care more for animals than for humans.. what about as much ? What's wrong with that ?
Tell me why a human suffers more in war than a pet..

because a human also suffers for others...and a pet only suffers for themselves.

And Draqon, you are full of shit about those animals being weapons.

because a human also suffers for others...and a pet only suffers for themselves.

Right.. :rolleyes:
How does a human suffer for others when he's bombed to pieces or shot in the street ?

.And Draqon, you are full of shit about those animals being weapons..

Enmos, everything is a weapon.

Are humans (especially soldiers) not more of a weapon than those animals ?
Are you a weapon, should you be killed ?

Right.. :rolleyes:
How does a human suffer for others when he's bombed to pieces or shot in the street ?

With death of his soul and hopes of others

Are humans (especially soldiers) not more of a weapon than those animals ?


There is no such thing as more of a weapon. All weapons are of equal value if used with precision and tactic.

Are you a weapon, should you be killed ?

I am a weapon. I do not wish to be killed.

because a human also suffers for others...
True for some. Pain can be social, or intensely private.

Depends whether you're a woman or a man. :yay:

With death of his soul and hopes of others

Moron.

Strangely I think this is true for most of us but an injured or traumatised animal still provokes an intense emotional response. The big eyes and the fur play a part, but I think the main hold they have over us is that they're dumb. They can't say "Oh my God, I've been shot, I'm bleeding" but can only articulate their pain in blood-curdling yelps. The trauma for us, the sense of helplessness, lies in this gap between what they feel and what they can tell us.

And words do play a part.

When my grandmother had a stroke and was lying in the hospital, she was unable to speak or move much and half of her face was numb. It was easy to empathize with her.

But as long as the injured person can speak -and make at least some sense- my first reaction is to think "Well, then you don't have it so bad. And if you can be so smart and proud about your sickness to talk about it the way you do, suits you right. I'm not going to have compasison for you."

Moron.

You are wrong.

True for some. Pain can be social, or intensely private.

Depends whether you're a woman or a man. :yay:

All sexes are of equal share. Some hide their emotions others do not, the pain is of equal share neverthless.

What do you see?

http://liberty92.files.wordpress.com/2007/05/c-young-soldier.jpg

A baby, a kid or a future soldier?

I see a soldier

When my grandmother had a stroke and was lying in the hospital, she was unable to speak or move much and half of her face was numb. It was easy to empathize with her.

But as long as the injured person can speak -and make at least some sense- my first reaction is to think "Well, then you don't have it so bad. And if you can be so smart and proud about your sickness to talk about it the way you do, suits you right. I'm not going to have compasison for you."
Whereas I have experience of strokes where speech and mental awareness have been greatly reduced.

Horrifying and unforgettable.

What do you see?

http://www.theodoresworld.net/pics/0806/IDF_soldier_and_KittyImage2.jpg

A man with passionate heart and a kitty or a soldier who lets emotions sway him from his main task to kill and serve his unit priorities?

I see a soldier who has lost his focus in war

What do you see?

http://www.mysanantonio.com/multimedia/slideshows/show_321/BAGHDAD-LIONS-EO-2.jpg

Men who save the animals and the zoo and have a kind heart or soldiers who are not doing what they came for Iraq for?

I see soldiers who are wasting their time and are exposing themselves to bullets as well as not doing their primary task of eradicating rebels

What do you see?

me

I am your target.

What do you see?

http://www.theodoresworld.net/pics/0806/IDF_soldier_and_KittyImage2.jpg

A man with passionate heart and a kitty or a soldier who lets emotions sway him from his main task to kill and serve his unit priorities?

I see a soldier who has lost his focus in war

Can please just shut the fuck up ?
Make you own thread on how animals are the scum of the earth and why humans are so much better and more valuable than them.

Can please just shut the fuck up ?
Make you own thread on how animals are the scum of the earth and why humans are so much better and more valuable than them.

I state the truth.

Which still doesn't explain why injured animals shock us more than injured babies, who are similarly unable to articulate

Is that really true? If you came upon a car accident and saw a mutilated baby that was silent and in shock but still alive and a bleeding little puppy with large eyes, who would you pick up first?

Is that really true? If you came upon a car accident and saw a mutilated baby that was silent and in shock but still alive and a bleeding little puppy with large eyes, who would you pick up first?

a human baby obviously.

humans are above all else, my priority as a human is to protect humans above everything else. And if humans fight amongst each other, I pick sides.

I state the truth.

No, you're babbling nonsense.
Please do it somewhere else.

Is that really true? If you came upon a car accident and saw a mutilated baby that was silent and in shock but still alive and a bleeding little puppy with large eyes, who would you pick up first?

Doesn't picking up the baby have something to do with society and it's expectations ?
Imagine the hell you would find yourself in when you picked up the animal.

humans are above all else, my priority as a human is to protect humans above everything else. And if humans fight amongst each other, I pick sides.

For the last time, you fascist. Shut up ! :mad:

No, you're babbling nonsense.
Please do it somewhere else.

You a man, Enmos.

You are a human, Enmos.

If it came time for you to take part in war, you either kill or die.

And everything in war is a weapon, you use everything in war as a weapon, you follow orders...shoot and kill...shoot and kill...shoot and kill....or die.

There are no passion, no room for it and if you do leave room for it, you die.

There is one task and that is to serve the unit of military and the tasks upon you.

You a man, Enmos.

You are a human, Enmos.

If it came time for you to take part in war, you either kill or die.

And everything in war is a weapon, you use everything in war as a weapon, you follow orders...shoot and kill...shoot and kill...shoot and kill....or die.

There are no passion, no room for it and if you do leave room for it, you die.

There is one task and that is to serve the unit of military and the tasks upon you.

And you are glorifying that. Well done..

The second you hear you have to fight in war you probably shit your pants and cry for your mommy.

And you are glorifying that. Well done..

and you are dismissing that.

Doesn't picking up the baby have something to do with society and it's expectations ?
Imagine the hell you would find yourself in when you picked up the animal.

Who would you pick up first?

Who would you pick up first?

The baby. Who wouldn't..

The second you hear you have to fight in war you probably shit your pants and cry for your mommy.

You don't know me. I am living alone for many years now and never been in a family unit for too long.

The baby. Who wouldn't..

:eek: seriously? I thought you were for animals are better than humans ideology.

You don't know me. I am living alone for many years now and never been in a family unit for too long.

Yea.. ? It's showing. Get out more.

:eek: seriously? I thought you were for animals are better than humans ideology.

It just shows your ignorance and selective reading.

Get out more.

what for? there is nothing interesting in USA, only garbage.

It just shows your...

it shows my misunderstanding.

what for? there is nothing interesting in USA, only garbage.

How come ? Was it the animals ?

How come ? Was it the animals ?

huh? :bugeye:

huh? :bugeye:

How come there is only garbage in the USA ? Who made it into garbage ?

How come there is only garbage in the USA ? Who made it into garbage ?

defenetely not me, I am the most ecologically passive person in this state for sure. I drive a bike, I live in small room, I recycle trash, I eat healthy food.

defenetely not me, I am the most ecologically passive person in this state for sure. I drive a bike, I live in a tent, I recycle trash, I eat healthy food.

So who then ?

So who then ?

like I care.

like I care.

Of course you don't, which only proves my point.

Of course you don't, which only proves my point.

yeah well if you have noticed, I lie frequently. Plus, since I am talking about this in the first place, it shows that I do care.

yeah well if you have noticed, I lie frequently. Plus, since I am talking about this in the first place, it shows that I do care.

Why did you say you didn't then.

You lie frequently... Don't you think I know that probably 90 percent of what you spout here is complete bullshit ? It's why I want you to shut up and go spout your garbage someplace else.

Why did you say you didn't then.

You lie frequently... Don't you think I know that probably 90 percent of what you spout here is complete bullshit ? It's why I want you to shut up and go spout your garbage someplace else.

But if I lie frequently, would that not be a lie as well?

..have fun talking to yourself.
See you in three days, probably.

..have fun talking to yourself.
See you in three days, probably.

3 days? :bugeye:

Is that really true? If you came upon a car accident and saw a mutilated baby that was silent and in shock but still alive and a bleeding little puppy with large eyes, who would you pick up first?
Hmm. What breed?
For one thing, when I see dead animals in field of war...I see them much lower status than if I saw a dead human in field of war
Strangely I think this is true for most of us but blah blah blah
Which still doesn't explain why injured animals shock us more than injured babies yada yada yada
I dunno. I'm confused. The thought of coming across a badly injured animal provokes a stronger emotional response in me than the thought of coming across an injured child. Sue me. But thinking isn't doing and, regardless, I'd still pick up the child first because, as any first-aider knows, the silent, still ones should be your first priority. :mufc: But... yeah. No, baby would be first because, call it irrational, because it is, but I ascribe human life a higher value than non-human life.

Baby would be saved but it is doggie who would break my heart. And I expect everyone will agree with me on that. :(

Why do you ask such awkward questions?

I don't know what I would do, either.

So I ask people who I think, think about stuff the way I do.

Just in case, you know, I do something awkward.

So I ask people who I think, think about stuff the way I do.

You think Redarmy11 thinks about things the way you do?

You think Redarmy11 thinks about things the way you do?
Hmm. I think one of should feel insulted by this.

I'm just not sure who. :(

Hmm. I think one of should feel insulted by this.

I'm just not sure who.

My question was neutral, though, inquring about a factual state of affairs.
I was surprised to see that a Muslim theist would think that an atheist/agnostic would think about things the same way she does ...

You think Redarmy11 thinks about things the way you do?

Not about everything, I'm sure, but I've yet to disagree with an opinion he expressed

Wait a minute, I remember one, but its inconsequential to this discussion.:D

yo S.A.M and greenberg do you agree with ideas I present on page 4 of this thread? I feel stacked to a cross by Enmos.

I was surprised to see that a Muslim theist would think that an atheist/agnostic would think about things the same way she does ...
We agree on a wide range of moral and political issues. And, because I think religious beliefs, or the lack of them, are highly personal, individual things and not terribly malleable, I tend to ignore her when she starts ranting about Allah this and Allah that, Islam this and Islam that - as I ignore all the morons who argue with her so pointlessly about it, over and over and over and over and over and...

Anyway, I've been thinking. It seems to me that atheism is largely... an internet experience.

Back in the real world, it's hardly ever mentioned, and then when it is it's just... :shrug:

So everybody shut up about it.

Wait a minute, I remember one, but its inconsequential to this discussion.:D
What is it? Not that I care, since you're almost certainly wrong anyway.

Except not almost.

What is it? Not that I care, since you're almost certainly wrong anyway.

Except not almost.

It was during a discussion about religion with Michael ;)

We agree on a wide range of moral and political issues. And, because I think religious beliefs, or the lack of them, are highly personal, individual things and not terribly malleable, I tend to ignore her when she starts ranting about Allah this and Allah that, Islam this and Islam that - as I ignore all the morons who argue with her so pointlessly about it, over and over and over and over and over and...

Anyway, I've been thinking. It seems to me that atheism is largely... an internet experience.

Back in the real world, it's hardly ever mentioned, and then when it is it's just... :shrug:

So everybody shut up about it.


Thats true, none of my atheist friends, or American friends or Catholic friends etc care about any of this. My own opinion is that it does not really matter much in the real world either. :shrug:

I dunno. I'm confused. The thought of coming across a badly injured animal provokes a stronger emotional response in me than the thought of coming across an injured child. Sue me. But thinking isn't doing and, regardless, I'd still pick up the child first because, as any first-aider knows, the silent, still ones should be your first priority. :mufc: But... yeah. No, baby would be first because, call it irrational, because it is, but I ascribe human life a higher value than non-human life.

Baby would be saved but it is doggie who would break my heart. And I expect everyone will agree with me on that. :(

Exactly, although I don't ascribe higher value to human life than I do to animal life.
I just isn't so. Only reason you feel it's so is because you've been brainwashed by society, which is probably quite natural (to humans)..

So you're saying if people were less brainwashed, a woman would be as likely to worry about the family dog as she would her own kid?

I don't know what I would do, either.

So I ask people who I think, think about stuff the way I do.

Just in case, you know, I do something awkward.

Huh.. you think about stuff the way I do ?
Hmm.. if so, you hide it well.

So you're saying if people were less brainwashed, a woman would be as likely to worry about the family dog as she would her own kid?

Of course. You don't think so ?

yo S.A.M and greenberg do you agree with ideas I present on page 4 of this thread? I feel stacked to a cross by Enmos.

You compare yourself to Jesus for the things you said ? :bugeye:

Huh.. you think about stuff the way I do ?
Hmm.. if so, you hide it well.

Nope, I was referring to red. There are maybe a dozen people here who I rarely disagree with, I only have discussions with them when I want to clarify something in my own mind or simply for the heck of it.

You compare yourself to Jesus for the things you said ? :bugeye:

hey man...

... *sighs*

Of course. You don't think so ?

Somehow I don't think so, reversing the feeling, if I had to create a scenario where I could save only one person, say, my sister or her dog, I don't believe there would ever be an agony of indecision for me. I would rather grieve for the dog, callous as it may sound.

Thats true, none of my atheist friends, or American friends or Catholic friends etc care about any of this. My own opinion is that it does not really matter much in the real world either. :shrug:

:thumbsup:
And now you know why atheists can be so defensive. It's not even a big deal in our own lives. We just think differently about one little aspect of life theists happen to hold as the most important thing in life.

Nope, I was referring to red. There are maybe a dozen people here who I rarely disagree with, I only have discussions with them when I want to clarify something in my own mind or simply for the heck of it.

Well I assumed you were talking about me because you asked me that question :D

hey man...

... *sighs*

You could stop lying.. maybe it helps.

You could stop lying.. maybe it helps.

what have I stated as a lie?

My statement is that during times of war anything is a weapon. Yet you seem to not agree to it. And that is why I need some other folks to express what they think about this.

I would rather grieve for the dog, callous as it may sound.
:bawl:

Well I assumed you were talking about me because you asked me that question :D

Also asked you the same question. The scenario was created for red. I know how he feels about babies and big eyes.:D

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1844480&postcount=62

what have I stated as a lie?

My statement is that during times of war anything is a weapon. Yet you seem to not agree to it. And that is why I need some other folks to express what they think about this.

You admitted to lie frequently when I confronted you with the contents of your posts in this thread.

Also asked you the same question. The scenario was created for red. I know how he feels about babies and big eyes.:D

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1844480&postcount=62

lol ok.

You admitted to lie frequently when I confronted you with the contents of your posts in this thread.

well in fact the only lie I made there was my statement that I lied.

:bawl:

Well I would grieve, it is a sweet little dog

http://img156.imageshack.us/img156/9523/freckles107jr0.jpg

Maybe we tend to be touched by animal suffering more because of their helplessness in comparison with humans. Humans have medicine and each other. What's a hurt dog going to do in the midst of a war zone ?
Also, animals cannot comprehend what's going on, they are completely innocent to the concept of war. Which makes it more tragic that they fall victim to it.
Lastly, even thought there are legions of perfectly innocent victims in any war, humans make war. It's a human flaw, and animals have to suffer for it.

well in fact the only lie I made there was my statement that I lied.

You're forgiven, if it goes both ways :)

Christ-- what's with all you service people and the long fucking wind?


Translation: we tried compensating for dog, and what the fuck is a 'ripshit'?
Don't get sand in your vagina. It was a relevant anecdote. I'm flattered that you felt it necessary to read, though.

Compensating the guy for shooting his dog is a matter of etiquette. Once compensation is offered for a misdeed, it is tantamount to a recognizance of the victim's duress, and no further grudge can be held. It was strange to me too, at first, but I didn't invent their cultural customs.

Also: ripshit (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=ripshit).

Anyway, don't give me cant about standing orders to kill feral animals being a "protection measure" because that's pigshit--when's the last time anyone in that little platoon of yours got rabies?
Worms?
Died of fleas, ticks, Parvo, Brucellosis?
Sorry, it is a force protection measure, and I already explained the logic behind it, which was not my invention either. If you have a problem with it I suggest you write a strongly-worded letter to MNF-I informing them that sciforums poster "gendaken" does NOT approve of their policy.

Thats true, none of my atheist friends, or American friends or Catholic friends etc care about any of this. My own opinion is that it does not really matter much in the real world either.

Such things matter to me, though.

Sorry, it is a force protection measure, and I already explained the logic behind it, which was not my invention either. If you have a problem with it I suggest you write a strongly-worded letter to MNF-I informing them that sciforums poster "gendaken" does NOT approve of their policy.

Nonsense.

Gendanken, put my name under it as well.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_nvfQw8UCDE

I don't agree with killing animals on sight but that vid proves the danger dogs in particular pose.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_nvfQw8UCDE

I don't agree with killing animals on sight but that vid proves the danger dogs in particular pose.

http://www.unity.i8i.co.uk/forum/images/smiley_ROFLMAO.gif

I love the part where it goes up 1000 feet:D

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_nvfQw8UCDE

I don't agree with killing animals on sight but that vid proves the danger dogs in particular pose.

This sometimes happens apparently, but it is not the issue at hand.
I wouldn't blame a soldier that shoots a bomb dog, I'd blame the imbecile that strapped the bomb to it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_nvfQw8UCDE

I don't agree with killing animals on sight but that vid proves the danger dogs in particular pose.

LOL I saw the vid now :o

This sometimes happens apparently, but it is not the issue at hand.
I wouldn't blame a soldier that shoots a bomb dog, I'd blame the imbecile that strapped the bomb to it.

Apparently some Waffen SS did it, tying bundles or grenades to dogs and setting them on allied troops. Trained them to run under tanks too with satchel charges on them. Also used for mine clearance. Some reckon allies did it too in WW2 but thats not boasted about so much.

No, "they" commit atrocities, we "necessary judgement calls ".

Sad. I wonder why they don't boast about it..

http://community-2.webtv.net/Hahn-50thAP-K9/K9History21/

half way down I found a lot including suicide dogs, I heard this before and not just about Russians (not to be confused with explosive sniffer dogs (which are still used) which obviously don't die)

You know what that smacks of to me? Manipulating special needs kids, using animals to do useless experiments on, stealing the money from an old ladies purse. It's cowardice of the highest proportion.

http://community-2.webtv.net/Hahn-50thAP-K9/K9History21/

half way down I found a lot including suicide dogs, I heard this before and not just about Russians (not to be confused with explosive sniffer dogs (which are still used) which obviously don't die)

That's sick :(

You know what that smacks of to me? Manipulating special needs kids, using animals to do useless experiments on, stealing the money from an old ladies purse. It's cowardice of the highest proportion.

I agree !

I read in the paper today that our government has been testing poison gas on animals. They used Nerve gas and Sulfur mustard. And they supposedly did it for 'defensive purposes'.. suuure..
:mad:

If they so desperately want to test it why don't they test it on themselves ?

yeah it is cowardly to exploit animals like that. Seen a few other things looking round the web I didn't know about such as US troops serving in pacific used to use dogs to clear caves with IJA troops in. Since Japanese wouldn't surrender and it was risky to enter the caves they sent dogs laden with explosives with timer detonator.

So horrible the way people can even think about that. It's not like something small groups of people come up with as desperate measure, these dogs in most the cases have been trained as part of large programs specifically for this purpose.

As for explosive and drug sniffing dogs I don't think that is bad since they are looked after and do serve the purpose of helping rather than killing others.

yeah it is cowardly to exploit animals like that. Seen a few other things looking round the web I didn't know about such as US troops serving in pacific used to use dogs to clear caves with IJA troops in. Since Japanese wouldn't surrender and it was risky to enter the caves they sent dogs laden with explosives with timer detonator.

So horrible the way people can even think about that. It's not like something small groups of people come up with as desperate measure, these dogs in most the cases have been trained as part of large programs specifically for this purpose.

As for explosive and drug sniffing dogs I don't think that is bad since they are looked after and do serve the purpose of helping rather than killing others.

I agree.

I think it's something almost innate to humans though.. sadly.
We are supposedly superior, so we can do whatever the hell we want.
I don't know where this superiority complex comes from, but I have my suspicions about organized religion.

I remember the opening of douglas coupland's life after god. About how humans think they are so special and the only things humans do that there was no animal equivalent of is writing, smoking, and bodybuilding. He then says that's not a lot considering how special we are.

I am sure there are animals who bodybuild, that leaves smoking and writing. Again not so impressive considering how special we think we are.

I remember the opening of douglas coupland's life after god. About how humans think they are so special and the only things humans do that there was no animal equivalent of is writing, smoking, and bodybuilding. He then says that's not a lot considering how special we are.

I am sure there are animals who bodybuild, that leaves smoking and writing. Again not so impressive considering how special we think we are.

Yes, and it's only due to a somewhat higher brain-size/body-size ratio.
We are basically the same.

Oh animals aren't that wonderful either. Dolphins gang rape the cows, scorpions eat their young etc., without the excuse of religion. We perhaps think our crimes are more awful because we think we should know better. Further emphasising how our expectations of ourselves far surpass our actual abilities.

Oh animals aren't that wonderful either. Dolphins gang rape the cows, scorpions eat their young etc., without the excuse of religion. We perhaps think our crimes are more awful because we think we should know better. Further emphasising how our expectations of ourselves far surpass our actual abilities.

My main point is that humans are not more important than animals, meaning they should have rights. Mainly the right not to be unnecessarily killed, and to be left alone.

My main point is that humans are not more important than animals, meaning they should have rights. Mainly the right not to be unnecessarily killed and to be left alone.

:thumbsup:

They should cook them

http://img91.imageshack.us/img91/9964/00egyas4hv2.jpg

SAM ? :bugeye:

What is this ?

God, you people can sure rack up pages of empty chatter fast.

Well, let's see if I can dredge up some relevant quotes in this mishmash.

I suppose the place to start would be the opening post:

"During the first quarter of 2005, The HSUS heard from many service members in Iraq, seeking intervention in the fate of rescued animals, mostly dogs, in danger of being confiscated and killed by military authorities. Soldiers confirmed that the U.S. government had hired contractors to kill dogs found on American bases in Iraq. Some military units were also ordered to shoot animals on sight."

"..those who breach the policy on pets face the threat of serious punishment, including reduction in rank and court-martial."

http://www.hsus.org/pets/pets_relate...the_state.html

WTF !?

First. Everyone seems to be taking this as a general order to shoot all animals on sight. I can't find a copy of General Order 1A as it's strictly need to know, apparently, but everything that I've found (and the article itself) indicates that this is not the case.
Its general thrust seems to be proscribing the keeping of pets. The care and feeding of animals.
It (the article) specifically states "Some military units were also ordered to shoot animals on sight."
Some.
The only example of this 'some' were certain units of marines who were ordered to hunt down packs of feral dogs that had been 'battening on corpses in Fallujah.' That seems reasonable. It's sad that it had to happen, but eating rotting corpses is a good way of becoming a disease carrier don't you think?

What's his name, Echo3Romeo or whatever, gave a story that shows that his platoon not only was not under standing orders to kill all feral animals (or if they were that they tended to break this order regularly) but that they disliked any such idea. That they, too, sympathized with the animals. And even struck out against a newb who took it in his head to shoot an attacking animal when a kick would most likely have sent it scurrying for cover. This went beyond the platoon level when the offending corporal was not punished for lashing out against a superior officer in any but a superficial manner. He was given a slap on the wrist because his commanders also agreed that killing the dog was unnecessary.

So.
What do we have then?

A few issues:

1. There seems to be an implication that this order goes against military tradition and that the taking of mascots is tried and true military practice. If not officially allowed then informally.


So. Is this the case?
I've tried doing a rudimentary search for the history of military adoption of feral animals and haven't been able to find anything definitive. Is this perhaps an example of sentimental gossip? Does anyone have some real world examples of feral animals being taken in without breaking rules?
You know, another tradition in wartime was to send jeeps home piece by piece.


2:
Anyway, don't give me cant about standing orders to kill feral animals being a "protection measure" because that's pigshit--when's the last time anyone in that little platoon of yours got rabies?
Worms?
Died of fleas, ticks, Parvo, Brucellosis?

A little statistic for you: deaths in the U.S. forces since the start of the war is upwards of 8,000 and this does not include the thousand other injuries resulting in honorable discharges, while the Iraqi body count soars to over 80,000:

The article gives one such example: "In February 2005, the Air Force blamed a stray dog taken in by a group of civilian contractors, presumably in Iraq, for an episode that saw 56 individuals treated for potential exposure to rabies."

How prevalent is this sort of thing? It's hard to say, the numbers are not provided in any meaningful sense. What is provided is somewhat suspect: "Historically, rabies has not been a major public health issue in Iraq. Between 1989 and 2000, according to the World Health Organization (WHO), there were just 27 positive cases of rabies in dogs and just one case in another domestic animal. One military deployment web site indicates that there were 31 reported cases in Iraq in 1996, and an unverifiable news account from late 2004 suggested that there had been as many as 61 cases in Al Anbar province before the American invasion of Iraq."

Something that occurs to me is to wonder what type of treatment animals receive in Iraq 'historically'. Do people send for the local equivalent of a dog catcher when an animal turns up rabid or do they solve the problem themselves with no muss and no fuss? How accurate is the record keeping? What about cass of people being infected with rabies?
I'm not saying that the Humane Society is biased... well, yes, I suppose I am.
You can make statistics say any damned thing you want and everyone knows it.
The numbers provided are not the proper numbers to make an informed decision on this. And, because of such, perhaps we should take Wittgenstein's advice.


3. Draqon, in his typical space-consuming manner, has brought up a decent point despite Enmos's violent protestations.
A soldier caring for an animal is, perhaps, a distracted soldier.

Echo3 stated in his narrative that his whole platoon could have easily been wiped out after that dog was shot. Now, people can squabble over the relative value of human vs animal life. But, the fact of the matter is that soldiers are expensive. I dont recall numbers and am reticent to go googling and post the first 'answer' I find. Suffice it to say that the numbers are sufficiently large that any accountant would discourage the needless sacrifice of a soldier.
Of course, the discussion can now go on to multiple examples of the US not providing ample protection to their soldiers in one way or another, and all of these would be valid in their own right. But, here we have an example of the military attempting to fulfill its obligations to protect the soldiers.
Is it effective? Perhaps. Perhaps not. But it is something.


4. It seems to me that the proscribing of pets might be detrimental to the soldiers' mental health. Living in such an environment, soldiers can get pretty messed up mentally. This is a given. It seems to me that being able to come 'home' to a cute little dog or cat could be better than a sedative for calming the soldier and preparing him mentally for another day 'in the shit'.

However, that photo of the soldier holding the kitten brings up a point. What if the pet gets killed during combat? What will that do to the battle-preparedness of the soldier?


There are a couple of other points that I could bring up, but I'll let them pass for the time being.
I'll just comment on one more thing before I go:

So alienated from each other has the human become that he'll spend billions on his pets every year, dressing them up in Tuxedos and Gucci, trying desperately to find in dog breath what he will never find in his lover's.
Not to mention that a dog is a stupid, groveling idiot who'll never question his stupidity, never make him feel small or inadaquate, never pose the threat to his ego that a human is.


This is why America's all outraged to hear a puppy's been killed in Iraq, yet barely flinch that hundreds of Iraqi or Afghani children are killed just the same.
You can't say the sudden compassion is that puppies are "innocent"--children are seen the same way.

This is an interesting point, but I wonder how general it can be. Yes, there are many misanthropes who love animals more than people. And, the idea that we are sort of trained to not even look at other people for fear of being seen as rude (countered, of course, with the requirement to look at other people lest we be deemed evasive) due to a need to distance ourselves from all our fellow rats living so close that we can't get the smell of their sweat out of our nostrils is also certainly true and most likely involved somehow. Yet, I think that this is far too simplistic to explain the general reaction that is evinced when a soldier is seen throwing a puppy off a cliff or upon hearing of a General Order (sensationalized or not) that orders soldiers to kill animals on sight.

Another part of the reaction, I think, is astonishment. It's the sort of thing that comes to mind when you hear any seemingly nonsensical rule or law. Your mind is set to trying to understand 'what the hell were they thinking?' These nonsensical seeming laws and rules tend to have matter of fact, real world reasons for their initial creation that is lost in time or secrecy.

Why was this placed in General Order 1A? What was the reading of the General Order which it replaced? What is the exact text of this version of the General Order? Was there an event which set this off? Did it derive from an abstract conversation between strategists in some office in Anaheim somewhere?
It's impossible to say.
We only see the tiniest tidbit of the rule and even less of the rationale.


General Order 1A paraphrased by the 506th Air Expeditionary Group, by the way, for those interested:

General Order 1A prohibits 506 AEG members from:
Possession, manufacture, importation, distribution or consumption of alcohol
Introduction, purchase, possession, use, sale, transfer, manufacture or consumption of any controlled substances or drug paraphernalia. Prescription drugs must be accompanied by the original prescription label of the prescribing medical facility or authority
Introduction, possession, transfer, sale, creation or display of any pornography or sexually explicit material. This includes but is not limited to photos, videotapes, movies, drawings, cartoons, books and magazines. “Sexually explicit” means depiction or description of nudity, including sexual or excretory activities or organs, in a lascivious or lustful way. The exceptions are magazines and videotapes lawfully obtained by AAFES, AFRTS, and the MWR center.
Purchase, possession, use or sale of privately owned firearms, explosives or ammunition.
Gambling of any kind including sports pools, lotteries and raffles.
Entrance into a mosque or other site of Islamic religious significance unless directed by military authorities as part of a military necessity or official tour.
Removing, possessing, selling, defacing or destroying archaeological artifacts or national treasures
Selling, bartering or exchanging any currency at other than official exchange rate
Adopting mascots caring for or feeding any type of domestic or wild animals
Proselytizing (preaching) or attempting to win converts to any religion, faith, or practice
Taking war trophies as souvenirs (there are exceptions - see 506 AEG/JAG for details)
Attending disciplinary ceremonies of any kind, such as public executions

3. Draqon, in his typical space-consuming manner, has brought up a decent point despite Enmos's violent protestations.
A soldier caring for an animal is, perhaps, a distracted soldier.
...
However, that photo of the soldier holding the kitten brings up a point. What if the pet gets killed during combat? What will that do to the battle-preparedness of the soldier?

As I was the first to point out in post no. 16:

You are forgetting that this is happening in a war. Where -

character and morale must be kept within a certain range.

If soldiers were allowed regular contact with animals, such as having them as pets -see those lovely kitties? the soldiers get all lovey dovey around them-, this would likely sway their morality and lead them to think it is wrong to go to war - so they would revolt or desert the army. The army cannot afford that.

Hmm.
Not quite.
Your point seems to be that by having a pet that the soldier will become a pussy and throw down his weapons and desert. I don't think that that's very likely.

By distracted, I mean just that, distracted. Focused on caring for an animal rather than keeping his senses and attention focused on the mission and keeping himself safe.

And if the mascot or pet should be killed or injured? Then the soldier would really lose focus. He might go 'ripshit' in Echo3's parlance (assuming I'm using it correctly.)

Another possibility is for an ambush to be set up by using stray animals as a lure to stop a soldier in a specific location. The soldier sees a cute little kitten or dog and stops to dig out some rations from his pack and wham. Sniper fire to the head.

I know that I am referring to an old war, Viet Nam. When we walked into villages that had been wiped out, either by us or the enemy, there was bodies around. Some in good shape, some not. Animals are animals, they will see a dead body as a source of food. The older the carcuss the more of a possibility that it may harbor disease. So we shot dogs that were feeding off the dead. I think you need to be in a war environment with all the stressors that occur before you pass judgement on someone shooting animals that we all know will feed off the dead. Would you be so upset if we shot rats that were feeding off the dead, or maybe shoot the rats that may feed on the dead? Its easy to pass judgement. You all describe something or an event with no personel knowledge of it by saying "This is what I would do." Much like the people that used to call US soldiers returning from hell, "babykillers". What would you do if you saw a chewed up baby corpse and then saw a dog with blood on its jaws? Bam!

Not quite.
Your point seems to be that by having a pet that the soldier will become a pussy and throw down his weapons and desert. I don't think that that's very likely.

No, I said ... this would likely sway their morality and lead them to think it is wrong to go to war- likely, not necessarily.
Perhaps instead of "likely", I should have used "possibly" or "might".


Bottomline, and I think we can agree on this, is that having pets or encouraging a friendly behavior towards animals is an emotional hazard for soldiers, and the army is generally disinclined to take such risks.

Yet, I think that this is far too simplistic to explain the general reaction that is evinced when a soldier is seen throwing a puppy off a cliff or upon hearing of a General Order (sensationalized or not) that orders soldiers to kill animals on sight.
The more I think about this, the more I think that we've just become blase about human death. It takes the death of another intelligent species to shock us. I think it's not so much misanthropy as almost inevitable desensitisation. Humans killing other humans just isn't news any more. Only the most spectacular bloodbaths make it past the emotional filter.

Or maybe we just couch our response in our resentment of other people. No dog ever cut you off in traffic. But if one ever bit you, which is comparatively very, very rare, you might not mind blasting them so much. My father used to do a bread-and-milk-and-housewife-insemination-route, and he used to have trouble with dogs all the time. Can't stand big predatory animals now - canids and felids alike - which fits in a way with the very dull greyish perspective of the humanitarian peculiar to his branch of communism. He'd like to see them all shot.

So we're all misanthropists again then? I think we've already discounted that as nonsense.

Do try to keep up.

The more I think about this, the more I think that we've just become blase about human death. It takes the death of another intelligent species to shock us. I think it's not so much misanthropy as almost inevitable desensitisation. Humans killing other humans just isn't news any more. Only the most spectacular bloodbaths make it past the emotional filter.

What also probably plays a part in why many people experience an animal death as painful is that nowadays, we commonly have animals as pets. Having animals as pets can make us more empathetic toward animals in general.

But there are exceptions, of course.

But if one ever bit you, which is comparatively very, very rare, you might not mind blasting them so much.

But not all people who have been injured by an animal are like that.
I've been -granted- slightly bitten by dogs, madly chased several times, scared away from the jogging track at least once a week - but I still don't hate dogs.

So we're all misanthropists again then? I think we've already discounted that as nonsense.

No, we're animals, which have stylized behaviour and learned prejudice, as you may recall. You now think yourself above such company?

But not all people who have been injured by an animal are like that.
I've been -granted- slightly bitten by dogs, madly chased several times, scared away from the jogging track at least once a week - but I still don't hate dogs.

Individual thresholds for behavioural reinforcement vary.

What also probably plays a part in why many people experience an animal death as painful is that nowadays, we commonly have animals as pets. Having animals as pets can make us more empathetic toward animals in general.
We're also intimately familiar with other people though. We keep the young of those as pets. Strangely, this fails to inspire us to make the necessary generalisation. News of the killing or mistreatment of animals barely decreases with distance. Whereas news of dead or mistreated humans seems somehow less significant the further they are away.

No, we're animals, which have stylized behaviour and learned prejudice, as you may recall. You now think yourself above such company?
I think, Sir. I don't feel. Wouldst thou liken me to a common ox?

We're also intimately familiar with other people though. We keep the young of those as pets. Strangely, this fails to inspire us to make the necessary generalisation.

Somehow, it is sometimes easier to love an animal than it is to love a human.

Clearly. What I want to know is: why? Given that many humans are every bit as 'innocent' as any dog or cat.

I don't know why exactly it is sometimes -often even- easier to love an animal than it is to love a human.
I grew up getting more affection and attention from animals than I did from humans. It's as if I per default feel closer to animals than to humans.

More to the point - even though animals are capable of some subversion and manipulation, and aggression, which could be seen as a drawback - the fact that they don't use the same verbal communication as we do makes the communication between them and us more straightforward, at least for those of us used to animals.

One can intuitively "read" on the animal's face and body what state the animal is in, empathize and in the case the animal is one's own, make according physical contact.
Not so with humans. With humans, there is an ordeal of words and arguments that one needs to get through and understand to react properly. This can be very confusing, and as such, off-putting.


EDIT: And another thing that makes a difference is that in the West, it isn't all that common to cuddle and be close with other people than those who are your partner and with your children - and even with them, it is limited. With cats, dogs, hamsters, rabbits, even snakes, one can cuddle a lot, at it isn't awkward. People seem to need to cuddle, and to like it. There are exceptions, of course.

I cannot seriously believe this shit got 8 pages of responses.
We've only began treating humans as humans, and for every step forward, we take two back. Seriously Can anyone get off worrying about animals ?
Care about other humans first. Then Care about animals.

I think, Sir. I don't feel. Wouldst thou liken me to a common ox?

You also feel, consciously or subconsciously.

shoot to kill animals? Wouldn't that just give away their position?

You also feel, consciously or subconsciously.
That is blasphemy, Sir.

Shoot and kill

Draqon, in his typical space-consuming manner, has brought up a decent point despite Enmos's violent protestations.
A soldier caring for an animal is, perhaps, a distracted soldier.

While that may be true I fail to see that as a good reason to shoot those pets.

Hmm.
Not quite.
Your point seems to be that by having a pet that the soldier will become a pussy and throw down his weapons and desert. I don't think that that's very likely.

By distracted, I mean just that, distracted. Focused on caring for an animal rather than keeping his senses and attention focused on the mission and keeping himself safe.

And if the mascot or pet should be killed or injured? Then the soldier would really lose focus. He might go 'ripshit' in Echo3's parlance (assuming I'm using it correctly.)

Another possibility is for an ambush to be set up by using stray animals as a lure to stop a soldier in a specific location. The soldier sees a cute little kitten or dog and stops to dig out some rations from his pack and wham. Sniper fire to the head.

I think this is all a bit far-fetched. It's just some soldiers that found a hurt kitten or whatever and saved it from a certain death.

Somehow, it is sometimes easier to love an animal than it is to love a human.

Clearly. What I want to know is: why? Given that many humans are every bit as 'innocent' as any dog or cat.

The expectations are lower. Its easier to meet lower expectations. You're always safe.

While that may be true I fail to see that as a good reason to shoot those pets.
The General Order does not state that the animals shall or must be shot. It simply prohibits the care and feeding of animals.

I think this is all a bit far-fetched. It's just some soldiers that found a hurt kitten or whatever and saved it from a certain death.

Did you, perchance, read Echo3's narrative of an actual in-the-field event?

I know that I am referring to an old war, Viet Nam. When we walked into villages that had been wiped out, either by us or the enemy, there was bodies around. Some in good shape, some not. Animals are animals, they will see a dead body as a source of food. The older the carcuss the more of a possibility that it may harbor disease. So we shot dogs that were feeding off the dead. I think you need to be in a war environment with all the stressors that occur before you pass judgement on someone shooting animals that we all know will feed off the dead. Would you be so upset if we shot rats that were feeding off the dead, or maybe shoot the rats that may feed on the dead? Its easy to pass judgement. You all describe something or an event with no personel knowledge of it by saying "This is what I would do." Much like the people that used to call US soldiers returning from hell, "babykillers". What would you do if you saw a chewed up baby corpse and then saw a dog with blood on its jaws? Bam!
How is shooting those rats going to solve anything ?
As soon as you've passed through other rats will come out and feed off the newly produced corpses. Way to go ! Perhaps you better dispose of the corpses in stead of making more ?

What would you do if you saw a chewed up baby corpse and then saw a dog with blood on its jaws? Bam!
No I wouldn't.. have a heart man.
Why do you think those dogs are feeding of corpses ?

The more I think about this, the more I think that we've just become blase about human death. It takes the death of another intelligent species to shock us. I think it's not so much misanthropy as almost inevitable desensitisation. Humans killing other humans just isn't news any more. Only the most spectacular bloodbaths make it past the emotional filter.

I agree, it is desensitization.
So.. we don't feel as much as we should for human deaths. Should we, therefor, also feel less for animal deaths ?

What also probably plays a part in why many people experience an animal death as painful is that nowadays, we commonly have animals as pets. Having animals as pets can make us more empathetic toward animals in general.

But there are exceptions, of course.

In the same way we care more for family members than we do for strangers ?

No, we're animals, which have stylized behaviour and learned prejudice, as you may recall. You now think yourself above such company?

Hmm good point.

Care about other humans first. Then Care about animals.

It is counterproductive in every sense. Look where it got us so far..

shoot to kill animals? Wouldn't that just give away their position?

They save them first. Then they are taken away and killed.

The General Order does not state that the animals shall or must be shot. It simply prohibits the care and feeding of animals.
Yes but the animals that already have been made pets are taken away and killed.

Did you, perchance, read Echo3's narrative of an actual in-the-field event?
It's only one event though.

One question: Who believes any reports from the HSUS?

One question: Who believes any reports from the HSUS?

I take it you don't ? Why not ?

The expectations are lower. Its easier to meet lower expectations. You're always safe.

Not necessarily "lower" - whatever that means in the context of love.
I think when it comes to animals, the expectations are more realistic: People often expect from eachother to be god-like and perfect and superbly wise and all sorts of superlatives - and this is not realistic. So when human relationships fail, it is often because of the unrealistic expectations.
With animals, we tend to have more realistic expectations, but not always, either.

I take it you don't ? Why not ?

Because they are not believable. Check them out at places like www.activistcash.com

Because they are not believable. Check them out at places like www.activistcash.com

Uh.. You don't believe them because they are not believable ?
You've got to come up with a better argument than that Metakron..

So.. what do you think of the article (pretend they are believable for a minute) ?

so its better to let them roam the streets starving to death than to euthanize them? If anyone feels so strongly about it, start or donate to a group that saves them. I think the money would be better spent on saving the people, but others may not. I don't understand why they care more about the animals than the people, but they do.

Don't they do the same thing here in the US? Animals found roaming are taken, held, and then killed.

Uh.. You don't believe them because they are not believable ?
You've got to come up with a better argument than that Metakron..

So.. what do you think of the article (pretend they are believable for a minute) ?

I will never pretend that they are believable.

so its better to let them roam the streets starving to death than to euthanize them?
It's better to take them to shelter. If not possible, yes, it's better to leave them be. There are enough corpses around for them to feed on :p

If anyone feels so strongly about it, start or donate to a group that saves them.
This seems to have become your standard reply to anyone that has any sort of problem with something.

I think the money would be better spent on saving the people, but others may not. I don't understand why they care more about the animals than the people, but they do.
Why is it that if people stick up for animals people like you start yelling that they care more for animals than for people ?
It's ridiculous.

I will never pretend that they are believable.

Fine, so you have no argument. Get out then.

...This seems to have become your standard reply to anyone that has any sort of problem with something.....

Of course it is. What the hell does bitching on a forum solve? If someone feels that strongly about it, they should get off their lazy ass and do something. :bugeye:

Of course it is. What the hell does bitching on a forum solve? If someone feels that strongly about it, they should get off their lazy ass and do something. :bugeye:

I'll try to remind you.

notice Enmos how Orleander mentions "bit***g" as not a solution to a problem...when she herself is doing precisely that. That is the essence of fallacy of american women, they are at core deceptive and immoral.

I'll try to remind you.

remind me about what?

I put my money where my mouth is. I don't bitch about how Wal-mart/Starbucks are running the little guy out while I shop there. I shop in my town, keeping my money here. I don't bitch about bigoted Boy Scouts while sending my son to them. I yanked him out and I no longer buy popcorn from them. I don't bitch about politicians then not vote.

If you can't walk the talk, shut up.

notice Enmos how Orleander mentions "bit***g" as not a solution to a problem...when she herself is doing precisely that.

In this case I agree Draqon. It's seems to have become some sort of expletive.

remind me about what?

I put my money where my mouth is. I don't bitch about how Wal-mart/Starbucks are running the little guy out while I shop there. I shop in my town, keeping my money here. I don't bitch about bigoted Boy Scouts while sending my son to them. I yanked him out and I no longer buy popcorn from them. I don't bitch about politicians then not vote.

If you can't walk the talk, shut up.

First of all you don't know what I am doing.
Secondly, you bitch constantly about things here.
Like I said, I'll remind you..

P.S. Aren't you bitching right now ?

I don't see it as a problem. I see it as a solution to a problem.

I don't see it as a problem. I see it as a solution to a problem.

What dear ?

First of all you don't know what I am doing.
Secondly, you bitch constantly about things here.
Like I said, I'll remind you..

P.S. Aren't you bitching right now ?

You have GOT to be kidding.
And no, I don't see what I am saying in this thread as bitching.

You have GOT to be kidding.
And no, I don't see what I am saying in this thread as bitching.

I kid you not.

What dear ?

Them killing the animals. I don't see it as a problem. If I did, I would be doing more than posting about it on a forum and pretending I actually care.

Them killing the animals. I don't see it as a problem. If I did, I would be doing more than posting about it on a forum and pretending I actually care.

But you don't care ?

why would I care that feral starving disease carriers are being put down when people all around them are dieing. No, I don't care. Its about prioritizing.

Its like caring about a paper cut when I've just had a leg cut off.

But you don't care ?

you see...and in addition Orleander does not care about the poor animals, and that is stereotipical of american women.

why would I care that feral starving disease carriers are being put down when people all around them are dieing. No, I don't care. Its about prioritizing.

Its like caring about a paper cut when I've just had a leg cut off.

So you think it's all about diseased animals huh.. ?

In this case I agree Draqon. It's seems to have become some sort of expletive.

I could have sworn he was a Moron. :rolleyes: Hmmm, now where did I read that and who posted it....hmmm.
hypocrite

So you think it's all about diseased animals huh.. ?

what do you think its about?

what do you think its about?

About the fact that soldiers are not allowed to keep the animals they saved around and, especially, that the animals are then put down.
There are groups of dogs around that are being put down, but that is not the main issue.

<sigh> and the main issue and has you upset is....

<sigh> and the main issue and has you upset is....

:confused:
I think I just told you. People treat animals like garbage.

and what are you doing about it?

and what are you doing about it?

Look, if that's your only message please get out. I got it..

Look, if that's your only message please get out. I got it..

:D LOL, my only message. LOL. :rolleyes:

mine are about as repetitious as yours on this subject, you get out! :p

mine are about as repetitious as yours on this subject, you get out! :p

You've not said anything about the subject.
All you did was telling me to stop bitching about it and do something about it.
As if you know whether or not I do something about it.
If you have something to contribute to this thread, be my guest. Otherwise, shut up.

Fine, so you have no argument. Get out then.

Happy birthday to you, too.

:confused:
I think I just told you. People treat animals like garbage.

Which is why so many people send millions of dollars to the phony humane societies and spend billions of dollars to maintain their own pets. Oh, please.

Of course animals are treated like shit. Unless it's a pet or of use somehow. Animals are exploited in far worse ways than humans. For a start we don't slaughter children by the billions to eat their flesh. We don't squirt chemicals into a womans eyes while she's trapped in a box with only her head poking out. We kill slugs and snails because they eat our pretty flowers. We only offer charity to those who we deem worthy. Namely cute little puppies and kittens. Insects are killed without a second's thought. Animals have it infinitely worse than humans.

Of course an