US Military rips away pet of deployed US Soldier shortly before Baghdad Pups can send puppy to safety in Minnesota

Quote:

Originally posted by Tarquin

Thus the rule, so that they don't get attached in the first place.

Yeah, that's a good policy. Make no meaningful emotional connections with animals, despite their documented positive mental and physical effects on injured and depressed people, and instead force them to internalize all emotional and psychological needs and desires the typical person under extreme levels of stress has.

Quote:

Originally posted by firereign

Wow people get all pissy over a fucking dog, when human right are violated every day in every part of the world.

You're missing the point. People are getting "all pissy" over the emotional harm caused the soldier, not over that specific dog, per se.

To be honest, however, I like most dogs more than I like most people, so logically I'd find the dog a more sympathetic figure than most of the people whose human right [sic] are violated every day in every part of the world.

Quote:

Originally posted by EricLindros

...

Yeah, that's a good policy. Make no meaningful emotional connections with animals, despite their documented positive mental and physical effects on injured and depressed people, and instead force them to internalize all emotional and psychological needs and desires the typical person under extreme levels of stress has.

EricLindros, you fuckin' straightin' up soldier. There is no place for that mamby pamby bullshit in the United States Armed Forces. Take out your God damned tampon and straightin' that skirt because I can smell pussy from here!

, when I write that I picture it in the voice of the drill instructor from Full Metal Jacket.

Military personnel are not machines, they're humans. So many are fucked up because they believe they are "killing machines" and then they return to their daughter and wife in Podunk, Alabama and have this whole dual consciousness. It's sad and I believe the U.S. military should do better at debriefing personnel that were in "the shit."

Quote:

Originally posted by EricLindros

...

Yeah, that's a good policy. Make no meaningful emotional connections with animals, despite their documented positive mental and physical effects on injured and depressed people, and instead force them to internalize all emotional and psychological needs and desires the typical person under extreme levels of stress has.

They're in a war-zone, Eric. It's not a positive emotional effect if the animal dies or spreads diseases to other units. It's also not what they're there for.

They're there to get out in one piece.

I honestly don't think you understand how permanent these life and death situations can be, and how every tiny detail matters so much to the survival of someone in a war zone. Aside from distractions, even the chance that the dog could be carrying something or harm the troop at the wrong moment means lives (note the plural) could be lost.

You speak from the heart and I can tell you mean well. Believe me, no one here is more interested in the well-being of the troops than me. I was one of them once.

The rule is a good rule. This rule saves lives.

So no, they don't get to hug a fluffy puppy today. Maybe the result is that they get to hug one later, or get to return to their wife and child where otherwise they may not.

You speak from the heart, but you also speak as someone who doesn't understand the gravity of the situations and the permanence of the consequences.

Quote:

Originally posted by Tarquin

...

They're in a war-zone, Eric. It's not a positive emotional effect if the animal dies or spreads diseases to other units. It's also not what they're there for.

They're there to get out in one piece.

I honestly don't think you understand how permanent these life and death situations can be, and how every tiny detail matters so much to the survival of someone in a war zone. Aside from distractions, even the chance that the dog could be carrying something or harm the troop at the wrong moment means lives (note the plural) could be lost.

You speak from the heart and I can tell you mean well. Believe me, no one here is more interested in the well-being of the troops than me. I was one of them once.

The rule is a good rule. This rule saves lives.

So no, they don't get to hug a fluffy puppy today. Maybe the result is that they get to hug one later, or get to return to their wife and child where otherwise they may not.

You speak from the heart, but you also speak as someone who doesn't understand the gravity of the situations and the permanence of the consequences.

Not to get too into it, but a family member of mine committed suicide after returning from service in Iraq. The statistics with regard to the mental health of returning soldiers are quite alarming. I understand it's a war zone and the permanent nature of the situation, and I think it is exactly because of the gravity of the situation and circumstances that silly (my word) rules like this should be thrown the hell out the window. Or if not thrown out the window, at least turned a blind eye to infractions. If I've been placed in an active combat zone I find it a bit ridiculous that I'm banned from having a beer or looking at a pair of tits in a magazine before I lay down to sleep. Same goes with a dog.

If a person is being shot at, mortared, and targeted on a daily basis, is it really THAT harmful to allow them to befriend a puppy? I understand the arguments against it, I just vehemently disagree with them.

Quote:

Originally posted by EricLindros

...

Not to get too into it, but a family member of mine committed suicide after returning from service in Iraq. The statistics with regard to the mental health of returning soldiers are quite alarming. I understand it's a war zone and the permanent nature of the situation, and I think it is exactly because of the gravity of the situation and circumstances that silly (my word) rules like this should be thrown the hell out the window. Or if not thrown out the window, at least turned a blind eye to infractions. If I've been placed in an active combat zone I find it a bit ridiculous that I'm banned from having a beer or looking at a pair of tits in a magazine before I lay down to sleep. Same goes with a dog.

If a person is being shot at, mortared, and targeted on a daily basis, is it really THAT harmful to allow them to befriend a puppy? I understand the arguments against it, I just vehemently disagree with them.

Truly sorry for your family member.

Go ahead an disagree with them. Here is some more background information. The biggest reason for the alcohol and porn ban is because of the religious objections of the Islamic faith. We are respecting their objections to this type of material, even though satellite TV is widely available and has porn on it. Any Iraqi can get alcohol if they want it, but the official Islamic policy is no to both.

The military has recognized the value of dogs to soldiers that are visiting mental health providers, and they have a program for military working dogs to be used by the mental health clinics.

Every soldier knows that they can be extended, or "stop lossed" when they sign their initial contract, and every reenlistment contract. If they say they don't know this they are lying, or simply didn't read their contract. Did you know that every person who enlists in the military signs a contract for eight years? They may only sign up for three years active duty, but the remaining time is subject to call up in the Individual Ready Reserve. Even soldiers who "retire" after 20 years are subject to call up at any time. We don't get retirement pay per se, but draw a retention pay for this.

Service members agree to give up certain liberties when we serve our country. It is something we choose to do. You may not agree with it, some of the soldiers find out that they don't agree with this and get out after their contract is up. Those of us serving for 20+ years understand that this is for a much greater cause than self and feel privelidged to have the opportunity to continue to serve so ALL of our countrymen many live free.

Get out there and vote. I don't care who for, although I have my personal choice even though neither one are my first choice. Just get out and exercise the privilege that so many soldiers have given their lives for.

Quote:

Originally posted by EricLindros

...

Not to get too into it, but a family member of mine committed suicide after returning from service in Iraq.

That's terrible, Eric. I offer my sincerest condolences.

I'm going to presume we're speaking about a male.

That said, "After returning from service."

Meaning had they done more for him once he was home, he might still be with us. The treatments at home are lacking severely, no doubt. The way we treat our military in terms of support both operationally and in terms of after they get home is disgusting and something we should all be ashamed of.

I'm not trying to diminish the sensitivity of the argument you're making, but the soldier did come home, and we should have and could have done more for him here.

That does not change the fact that the rule is sound, and that the current discussion pertains to something completely different than what your personal experience is about. You're citing an anecdote here - a one time instance that doesn't really paint the holistic picture. The picture it paints also has nothing to do with the rule about dogs for active duty military currently in war zones. These are two different topics.

You are right that we don't treat our soldiers very well though, and I support you more than you know when you say we should do better.

We can do better.
We should do better.
And pets should not be allowed (much less acquired) in war zones.