I'm not sure what you mean? I don't see the comparison with the actual war anyway. It's like saying the holocaust was terrible so any crime less bad is acceptable (N.B. That Godwin fellow was onto something). Anyway, my point is that war has, on some level, to some people, a point. The people in charge in Washington apparently think that the loss of life in the middle east is acceptable. The object of the war is to achieve something. I'm not sure what anyone achieved in throwing a dog off a cliff.
The vid was a bit pointless and cruel. This thread cheered me up though. Some seriously mixed up view in here tbh. "He needs to be shot", "I'd like to be locked in a room with him" etc. Get a grip, seriously. We don't even know what the circumstances were. They may have found the puppy wandering about in the desert and figured it best to put it out of it's misery. Maybe they couldn't risk giving away their location with a humane gunshot and figured a long drop might be better? In that way, it may have been an act of compassion. The fact he seemed to enjoy it seemed to indicate he was a bit warped. But hey, that's war. I've never been in a combat zone so can't say first hand what it does to you but I'm sure its not pleasant. As for eating bacon, forget that, I've eaten dog in Korea. I'd do it again as it was quite nice tbh. Though I hear they beat the dog while they're still alive to tenderise the meat which isn't so nice.
I'm being quite sarcastic here, of course he shouldn't be killed for killing a dog, doesn't work like that, but I would like something bad to happen to the guy. (TO ABOVE POST) No.
So you don't want the guy to be killed, yet you hope an IED blows him to bits..? Or am I misunderstanding?
I'm coming from a law point of view tbh, get killed for killing a dog, oh how funny that would be. But seriously, if a IED went off under a hummer he was in, I couldn't give a ****.
I'm sorry, but you cannot have your cake and eat it. You cannot train people to be effective soldiers, throw them into a fairly brutal war and expect them not to be psychologically affected; not to get desensitised and brutalised by it. These are young people who do not yet have the ego-strength to absorb it all and maintain their equilibrium. You think Abu Ghraib was a fluke? Check out Zimbardo's Prison Experiment. And that was six days on a University Campus, not six months tour of duty in a real war. That relationship works in both directions, dude. Those who are trained and sent to kill people will get used to it. They are even taught to take pride in it. Next thing you know, killing a puppy doesn't mean a thing to them anymore. The soldier is a monster, but one created by the army and in our name.
Well, I'm not a vegan, and I'm not a bleeding heart, but I still think that was a horrible thing to do. I do agree that there are much worse things going on in the world, but I don't think that condones what the soldier did. If we allow soldiers to kill animals in order to blow off steam, then we really can't be outraged when they progress to raping and/or killing other humans when they get stressed. I understand that, as soldiers, they've already gone through a lot of reprogramming to desensitize them to death. Is there a difference between returning fire in live combat, and flinging animals off a cliff just because you can? That's an honest question. Personally, I think there is a difference, but I'd be interested to see what other folks have to say. In my opinion, the former is based on the grounds of self-preservation. The latter falls in the area of empathy, or more appropriately, the lack of empathy. Edit: Just read Nexxo's reply above. I can see how lack of empathy would actually be part of the soldier's initial training (i.e. it's hard to get people to shoot at each other if they can feel for the other side). Even so, I don't think this dog was carrying the plans to the Death Star. There's just no reason to harm it. On the other hand, I certainly don't think the soldier should be shot, or shocked, or dealt with in any such manner. I think some counseling is in order. Sorry, but I'm with Boba Fett on this one. -monkey
Whether it was nice, not nice, or unsettling for animal activists, the American armed forces--who, I remind you, are desperately recruiting soldiers to compensate for dropping enlistment rates--aren't going to discharge the soldier over this. So who's to discharge for knowingly air striking a dense residential zone? What's taboo, or isn't, is not as clear-cut when on duty, these days. What matters in the military is precision execution.
I've only skimmed this thread because (lets b honest) its just a few people getting angry at each each for misunderstanding each other. And to bring this back on topic. If the video is real, then shame on the soldier for resorting to throwing a puppy around for entertainment. Should we shoot him? No of course not. Hurting things because your bored or because you can is despicable, and if he can do that to a puppy then its possible (and i said POSSIBLE) for his forms of "entertainment" to escalate into something worse.. I think you are wong here. I think its possible to train effective soldiers properly including phsychological training to help combat desensitisation etc. Im not saying that it would be easy, cheap or quick but it would b possible.
I don't think anyone condones his actions (I certainly don't). I just think that if you train people to kill, then that's what you get. I'm not sure it is. Military culture is rooted in tribal competition. In-group, out-group, self-serving attribution bias, depersonalisation of the out-group, yada, yada. Furthermore it is based on overriding fundamental human instincts: turn flight response into fight response, suppress empathy, fear, pain and individuality; enhance blind obedience, violence and even sadism. Strategically a hurt enemy is better than a dead enemy, after all. Team cohesion becomes team collusion, following orders becomes abdication of personal responsibility. Why do you think soldiers get to wear identical uniforms and do those stupid synchronised marches? Why do you think concentration camp guards (sorry, Godwin) could sleep at night? Military training is basically about learning to kill on command. The only difference you point at is the reasons: killing hostile enemies in the heat of battle is not the same as killing a helpless puppy for fun, right? But that's where you're wrong. A soldier doesn't get to have reasons. He doesn't get to consider whether a war is ethically justified, or the strategically correct course of action, or whether the guy at the business end of his gun/bomb/grenade really deserves it. His is not to question why. He has his orders: kill this target. He obeys. Such is military culture. And when he has killed enough targets this way, he is made to feel proud of it: he gets praise, a medal, and a promotion up the ranks. He is a war hero. Don't get me wrong: many people join the army with noble reasons; to defend, not attack, to save rather than kill. They have a conscience, and try to balance personal morality with the brutality of war that (they find) they are forced to take part in. But military training and culture does not foster that; it works against that. Soldiers are trained to kill for no other reason than being ordered to. Once they have learned that, "fun" is as good a reason to kill as any other.
Looks like action will be taken, hopefully not just a dishonourable discharge. http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=4384322 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/03/04/wpuppy104.xml http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article3481977.ece http://www.usmc.mil/marinelink/mcn2000.nsf/0/7F00CEF1D09E9EBA852574020061B983?opendocument
I suspect a dishonourable discharge and the hatred of hundreds of thousands of people across the world will be enough imo.
No, I really don't think that's possible. How on earth do you suggest it's possible to be an effective killing machine without first becoming desensitized to it? That's half the point of basic training (the other half being to make you take any order without question or hesitation - brainwashing, in effect, and I don't mean that in a condescending way but merely stating a fact). People who can kill effectively and people who have strong sensitivity to death and destruction are really in two mutually exclusive groups. As much as I'm against this war and all others, I still feel better knowing that we've trained people to do their job damn well and have a few people who take it too far slip by than sending over a bunch of sissies who would duck and cover at the sound of a champagne cork hitting the ceiling. You want to suggest that it's possible to train a man to put bullets in people's heads one day, then go off frolicking in a field of dandelions and rabbits the next? Go right ahead and try, and I'll send you fifty bucks if you can make it happen. Seriously.
