"Lucky" the dog rescued in Iraq, ahhh shucks^^^^*******^^^^^

http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2005/04/05/military/4405195503.txt


Marine reunited with dog he rescued in Iraq

By: CANDICE REED - For the North County Times

RANCHO SANTA FE ---- He was just a small, homeless pup that brought smiles to Marines at Camp Fallujah in Iraq as he stumbled around with his four oversized paws and silly doggy grin.
On Monday, the dog known now as "Lava" was reunited at the Helen Woodward Animal Center in Rancho Santa Fe with one of his rescuers, Lt. Col. Jay Kopelman, a U.S. Marine reservist with the Camp Pendleton-based 1st Marine Expeditionary Force.

"His name should probably be changed from Lava to Lucky because if you go from Fallujah to Rancho Santa Fe you're a pretty lucky dog,"

***********

With the daily reports of dogs & cats & animals being maimed & killed in the daily bombs there its always nice to hear of animals being rescued.

i heard there was a un-armed cat injured in one of todays many explosions, does anyone know if it survived?

Are there animal hospitals in Iraq?

Or are they being flown air vac to american or uk animal hospital?

How about bullet proof vests for iraqs animals?

Are there blood banks for animals there?

Can i or we donate blood?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

you undermine that we are all humans and that these wars will not separate us species' wise. So donate blood to humans...not other species.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I see so animals dont count?

Do you know how many animals have been killed since this war?

I am sick of hearing of animals killed in the daily explosions there, who speaks for them?

How about a united nations for animals, & animal refugee camps set up in iraq & afghan.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I dont care how many animals have died. I care for humans and humans alone...and only than do I care of other species. Priorities here.

 

It seems to me you are playing god here, who are you to say humans are the devine species to cared for, breast feeded & nappy changed.

It seems to me as one of your priority species a humanbeing, that the only thing worth saving in iraq now are other species, not human ones, most of us have given up on them long ago, i dont know any dogs that strap dynamite to themselves & kill dozens of other dogs for fun do you?

So who are the most intelligent species in Iraq?

Are animals killing hundreds of eachother every day, no they are not, i dont know about you but i am totally numb too the daily human body count in iraq, where all past the point of being startled by 100 blown up in a market in iraq today, its like snoozeeeeeeeeeeeeeee, flick the channel & find something a bit more interesting than this daily carnage.

I thought the whole point of terroism was shock, & headlines,
I ask you dragon do you ever look at a newspaper & bother to read about the 30 or 70 killed today in iraq, or would you be more interested in reading about a panda giving birth in a iraq zoo today.

If CNN ran 2 stories today, one about the 30 killed in todays exposion, & the other about a pand giving birth in a iraq zoo, guess how many hits the panda would get compared to the human death link, my guess is a million more, easily.

 

End the War in Iraq! Put a dog on every street corner!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

- N

 

The reason there ain't no dogs in the inner cities ghettos is that the little bastards use them for target practice! ...and the parents do nothing about it or try to stop them!

Hard to see through eyes that have been shot out by kids with automatic weapons!

Apparently, once in a goon's age, you actually say something that I agree with. I'm amazed each time, but nonetheless......

Baron Max

 

Quite right. Everyone knows how the presence of dogs turned Englishmen into peace loving colonials who peacefully starved and divided many nations. Not to mention the peace loving policies of the animal loving US which transformed the world into a democratic haven.

Quite obvious, the connection there.

 

Or in other words: it is a coincidence. I'm glad someone finally pointed that out.

 

Englishmen basically invented sportsmanship, chivalry, general gentlemenly conduct, etc.
The whole concept of being patient and generous with lower classes, holding these kinds of values in high esteem.

Whether or not they perfectly upheld these ideals consistently or forwarded them to the natives of far away lands is neither here nor there, this is the culture that arose, they wanted to, they found the value in these values and put them on a pedestal.
Which is more than anyone else can say.

And it just so happens dogs did have alot to do with it. Sportsmanship arose from hunting and bloodsports which involved dogs.
The emphasis on the importance of fairness came from watching less than fair contests and finding them unpleasant and adapting them to be more aesthetically pleasing by being fairer.
The "underdog" became an icon of admiration, and was embodied with the 30 lbs bulldogs taking on the 2000 lbs bulls.
Originally the bull catching dogs were large and powerful for practical bullcatching ability.
But with the sport of bullbaiting a smaller dog was favoured to get kicked around and beaten down and flung off but be resilient and determined to succeed against the odds.

Of course the lower class lacked the sense of sportsmanship and bastardised the bullbaiting concept, engaged in their own shoddy versions in back alleys where the whole point was torturing a bull and not witnessing a dramatic contest where dogs might succeed against the odds.
But the english culture initially came up with an activity where the whole point was fairness, or even giving the edge to the adversary so that they can succeed against the odds as opposed to in accordance with them.

By our standards today even the noble sportsmanlike version was just unbridled cruelty and brutality, but our standards stem from the ideals incorporated into bloodsports and fieldsports involving dogs competing with other animals in combat/the chase/etc and going to great lengths to make it "sporting" and fair.
Before that the idea of caring how unfair it was for an animal in whatever was absurd.

Same thing with spain and bullfighting. We see it as a dickhead killing a bull unnecessarrily.
But to them bull's get killed anyway, the point here is the bull get's a fair chance to fight for it's life.
Our thinking a guy with a sword stabbing a bull is unfair stems from these guys with swords thinking it's unfair bulls don't get a chance to fight for their lives.

And spanish bullfighting also originates from spanish alano(dog) vs bull contests, which stemmed from the dogs needing to catch the bulls for butchers.

So, in other words, no coincidence.
Dogs brought out these bizarre human concepts of fairness, and ultimately caring about rivals and adversaries and prey and etc.

 

Too bad they never saw the people in their colonies on the same terms.

The "its not cricket" seemed rather limited to the "old boys" and "hunting with the hounds" never seemed very fair to the fox.

 

Some tried to uphold the ideal, and cursed the unfair treatment of natives in their colonies. But these were large groups of people, which were at their essence still humans despite the upper class trying to be something more.
And humans are cruel and greedy and selfish.

What's hilarious and ridiculous is the idea that if other groups of people had the capacity to travel and colonise far away nations, that they would have conducted themselves in a more ethical manner.
It would have been purely hostile savage take overs, amongst the british there was an element trying to do things in a gentlemenly fair way.
You wouldn't have got this from any other group of people.
They were just overshadowed by the many who either never genuinely were swayed by the cultural more's, or regressed to savage behaviour when confronted with wide open free wild lands.
Any other nation would have been unashamedly all out savage from the get go.

You're here all aware of the injustices and caring of the unfairness and poor treatment only because you've been influenced by the british culture which came up with giving a shit about any of this stuff.

 

Yeah right we grew up learning about how wonderful the British sense of fairness, and how it advanced and enhanced our country and civilisation.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Oh I'm sure you learned the opposite to a degree which would insult the intelligence of a rational person, it's quite evident in your posts.
But the british had already had their effect on your culture, and you ironically criticised them with their eyes.
And the british culture has had a massive effect on this "global culture" you are tapped into via the internet and other media sources.

 

Yeah their legacy is still evident.

Sound familiar?

How incredibly presumptuous of you.
The British stripped the cultures they invaded, many of which were light years ahead in understanding social dynamics. An ability to kill more people has never been a hallmark of civilisation. Its what comes after that counts. I suggest you remove the blinkers.

 

Not never, just now.
Well it was compared to the chinese equivalent which was trapping a fox.
It was a sporting contest where the fox had a very real chance of escape, and it did escape alot of the time, and it was designed to be this way on purpose purely for the fox's sake.
It was revolutionary stuff at the time.
No other nations could understand the trouble they were going to to catch a fox when they could just trap it.
They also didn't understand fishing all day with one hook when you could net across a stream and catch everything, etc.
The english decided there was a certain beauty in a fair contest, they didn't revel in assured success but rather defying the good chance of failure.
And were often just as glad to see that the fox or whatever escaped.
It was still a productive day of good sport, where a chinese man would just be irate with a fox's escape, and would have done anything to make sure he got it.

Fox hunting is relatively recent anyway, and is actually a bastard off shoot of hunting stags which was more sporting and fair.

 

Must be nice to have the rosy views.

Unfortunately 200 years of a history of colonial oppression tend to give one a different view of all the sport and fairness.

 

Indeed, like cricket, the one shining beacon of hope for your nation's youth.

And if you hosed an indian "city" with soapy water some remnants of civilisation would emerge amongst the filthy rubble, as fleeting vestiges of britain's rule.
Or "the good old days", as indians should call them.

Now they're back to knocking bear cubs' teeth out with rocks and putting ropes through their noses which they can tug on to make them bellow and dance in pain.
Thumbs up india for returning to your roots.

Your beef is with their capability. You can only be annoyed that they developed such resourcefullness, inventiveness and intelligence.
You're perceiving advanced cruel tendencies only because they were dominant enough to subject other people to their courteous brand of mild cruelty.
It could have been much worse, and would have been if any other population had those capabilities.

The first wave of crusaders, they were cruel, that was back when the british were pretty much just like everyone else. Even then the ideals were budding, but few had incorporated them into their lives, and the crusaders were violent ruthless savages.
Much like arabs today.