Rich, I could never be a breeder of dogs (esp Tervs!) because no prospective home would be good enough. Probably irrational, but many of you folks have known me a long time, so you shouldn't be surprised.

There are people who are proud to be in the military, those who wouldn't be caught dead in it, and me, who, if drafted back in the 60s, would be serving life in a Federal prison.

Drafting people is one thing , but drafting dogs is waaaay below that!

You probably don't agree, but then, you don't have to. Me, either.

Sue

There certainly are valid points on both sides of the issue. Personally, I'd rather have a dog trip an IED than a soldier. Or better yet, have that dog find the IED and let the EOD folks earn their money. At the very least, it's acceptable to put a dog down. Not to mention the emotional toll a family goes through with a KIA. I doubt the dog's family even knows.

Yes, it seems the military is getting better about working dogs staying with their handlers. And I truly believe that the dog in a unit has to be a morale booster.

Don't know if it's common knowledge, but I think the Army is the only branch with a Vetirnary (I can't spell that word) Corps. So obviously there is some though to keeping the animals healthy.

Curious how Sue and Art feel about police or airport dogs? Same resistance to their use?

Perhaps I perceive a failure of communications.

It seems to me the issue raised is whether we treat animals as companions with an inherent entitlement to as good a life as circumstances permit, or with the minimal consideration required to have them available for use as discardable tools without any inherent right to be treated well.

I did not sense any argument that animals should be treated better than humans who we put in harm's way, only that animals sent in harm's way be treated respectfully - perhaps especially because unlike humans it is not likely such animals have any realistic choice about their duty.

Callous use of animals is no more defensible than callous use of humans. Unnecessary sacrifice of animals is to be avoided just as is unnecessary sacrifice of humans.

If it comes down to a choice between necessary sacrifice of an animal or of a human, then there is no difference of opinion. The point in both cases is to make sure there is no reasonable alternative to such sacrifice and that sacrifice is really necessary.

Probably. I'm actually glad the dogs are getting some body armor. Though I wonder how well they tolerate the heat with the extra insulation and weight.

However, if we're talking about a working animal (horse, dog, etc), does it have the same entitlements as a companion, ie a pet? I'd hazard a guess of no. If Fido doesn't want to play fetch, no big deal. If Cujo decides he just doesn't feel like sniffing packages at Logan international and a bomb slips by...

I agree that there should be respect for the animals, and to not make life any more difficult than necessary. Certainly when they've lived out a productive life doing their job they shouldn't just be put down. But at the end of the day they, like soldiers or cops, have a job to do.

I will not get into any philosophical or moral debates; but I do feel that I have to answer this one statement. I served 24 years on active duty, and an additional 7 so far in government service as a civilian, still going to combat zones and getting shot at. While I agree with your basic premise that war is bad and should be avoided if at all possible, it is not always possible to do so. Most soldiers hate it more than you do, especially the ones out there getting shot at all the time. While the military exists to accomplish the missions given to it by our civilian leaders,it does put its people a close second to accomplishing the mission. The military is a very large bureaucracy run by human beings, and they have personalities and attitudes just like everyone else. They make decisions, good and bad. We do care about our people, our country, our dogs, our families, peace and people in general. It is the rare soldier who does not. It was soldiers, the dog handlers, who fought to get the policy changed on the final disposition of the dogs, because they cared so much. I have personally risked my life to protect and help civilians all over the world. I sacrificed much of my time with my family to go and perform these missions. The U.S. military has performed more humanitarian operations than anyone except the Red Cross. We fed and sheltered more people than they did. We lose more friends and family members than anyone else during war time, and in many cases we watch them die in horrible ways. We care, about you and every other person in this country.

Please do not use such a general description for the military. It is a human endeavor, and it has all the good and bad that humans posses. It also has a broad cross section of the American population. We follow the direction of our elected leaders. It is not perfect, but these men and women do not deserve to all be lumped into such a negative category.

I apologize to all for this if it is inappropriate. I could not leave it unanswered. I will remove myself from these forums if it is deemed necessary by the moderators.

Well said.

Thank you for your service-

Pete

I second that.

I was drafted in the 60s, fortunately before Vietnam. I did not enjoy my time in the military, but, overall, it was a positive experience.

The biggest SAR operation in which I was ever involved also included over 1000 troops. I can't even count the number of incidents in which a nice military helo participated, usually saving the day.

Montanero - I don't see anything objectionable in your post. An opinion well thought through and stated without resort to insult or outrage is always welcome.

Ditto