[romeosmom]

This is really disturbing!
I don't know if you have seen this-
I saw it on petfinder-and I am sick after seeing it.

http://forums.petfinder.com/viewtopic.php?t=150636

Warning- 2 American soldiers throw a puppy over a cliff.

Please read the petition and email:
Major General Robert E. Milstead, Jr.
Director, Public Affairs
[email protected]

Let him know that this action must not be tolerated by soldiers who represent our country!

 

[romeosmom]

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=4384322

 

[romeosmom]

http://www.golivewire.com/forums/peer-pteiso-support-a.html

totally sickening!

 

[kelso]

I think this is the same as this?

http://www.germanshepherds.com/forum/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=609698&page=4&fpart=1

 

[romeosmom]

I didn't see that one. He has commented on it, so I guess it was real.

 

[romeosmom]

You can sign the petition, email his superiors, and let your local senators know that abuse of animals by anyone, including US Soldiers, should not be tolerated!

 

[Guest]

One more time....


These are NOT US soldiers. Not US Army and so not soldiers.

They are marines. And so US Marine Corps is involved and well knows about it. Last I heard action was being taken. Your address above clearly states usmc.mil.

 

[EastGSD]

While I am of course disturbed by the video like everyone..and feel terrible for that puppy I must admit I also felt terrible about knowing that many of our fine young men and women can become that indifferent to the suffering of any living thing....is this something due to their experiences? An isolated event? Or a product of where they are and what they are expected to be and do?

Overall, very sad...

Cherri

 

[Guest]

Or could it just be that there are sick individuals everywhere? There are many, many more stories of animal abuse perpetrated by people who have nothing whatsoever to do with the US military.

 

[arycrest]

Originally Posted By: GSDadOne more time....

These are NOT US soldiers. Not US Army and so not soldiers.

They are marines. And so US Marine Corps is involved and well knows about it. Last I heard action was being taken. Your address above clearly states usmc.mil.

Maybe to those serving in the Army there's a distinction, but I just looked soldier up in the Merriam-Webster online dictionary, and the definition is not inclusive to the U S Army only. I wrote down the first definition, there are 3 others and also a listing for the intransitive verb.
1
a: one engaged in military service and especially in the army
b: an enlisted man or woman
c: a skilled warrior

 

[JanH]

I'd think if this happened in the backroads of the US with ordinary people it wouldn't get attention. It probably does.

One part was probably right - doing it a favor. Dogs are not seen the same way in some other countries as here. They're dirty pests and may be mistreated on a regular basis. But still could have been done a better way.

There's individuals all the time committing abuses here in the US. I mean how humane is it to tease two dogs with one bowl of food or throw one dog on top of another so they fight...but it happens and officials know it happens and apparently it's not illegal enough to do anything.

 

[Guest]

Originally Posted By: Arycrest

Originally Posted By: GSDadOne more time....

These are NOT US soldiers. Not US Army and so not soldiers.

They are marines. And so US Marine Corps is involved and well knows about it. Last I heard action was being taken. Your address above clearly states usmc.mil.

Maybe to those serving in the Army there's a distinction, but I just looked soldier up in the Merriam-Webster online dictionary, and the definition is not inclusive to the U S Army only. I wrote down the first definition, there are 3 others and also a listing for the intransitive verb.
1
a: one engaged in military service and especially in the army
b: an enlisted man or woman
c: a skilled warrior

There is indeed a distinction. If you say "soldier" that will always be associated with the US Army (note the first definition listed). Likewise a marine is going to be associated with the US Marine Corps. If you want to use a label use it correctly. If you intend the generic then use US servicemember. That terms applies to everyone in uniform.

Oh, and if you really want to tick off a marine, just call him a "soldier".

 

[CWhite]

HEy guys,

We should also maybe ask them to increase the mental health services for these men and women. Many of them will be very different from what they were like before.

I believe they said the suicide rate in the US increased. A disproportionate amount of the suicides were current or former member of the armed forces.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/02/01/military.suicides/index.html

I have heard more than one soldier/member of the armed forces state they become desensitized to killing and death et cetera.

Watch this in its entirety. I became stressed out after watching it. I can't imaging having to live life this way.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/badvoodoo/

 

[CWhite]

Tom,

With all dues respect, having grown up around all branches of the armed forces, I understand why many who served IN the armed forces like the distinction.

However, to the general public anyone in the armed forces is a soldier. It is not meant as a putdown or to be disrespectful.

I know Air Men (Flight Jocks), Sea Men [swabys (sp?)], Marines (Jarheads), Soldiers are highly proud of the branch o f service they are in.

The point I am trying to make is you just need to cut civilians a little slack.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._Army_acronyms_and_expressions

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._Marine_Corps_acronyms_and_expressions

 

[Guest]

Originally Posted By: CarolynHEy guys,

We should also maybe ask them to increase the mental health services for these men and women. Many of them will be very different from what they were like before.

I believe they said the suicide rate in the US increased. A disproportionate amount of the suicides were current or former member of the armed forces.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/02/01/military.suicides/index.html

I have heard more than one soldier/member of the armed forces state they become desensitized to killing and death et cetera.

Watch this in its entirety. I became stressed out after watching it. I can't imaging having to live life this way.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/badvoodoo/

Much is indeed being done. Far more than has ever been done in the past. I've had excellent counseling since my return from Iraq. My healthcare for my injury is also top notch and I have returned to duty. For a detailed look at this process here's an example: http://www.military.com/news/article/army-news/wtu-soldier-listed-fit-for-duty.html?ESRC=army-a.nl

As for the "Bad Voodoo" platoon, well you should read the blogs of the platoon members themselves before forming an opinion. I lived life this way. Of course it it incredibly high stress, but also just as obviously the average person is not a combat troop either. We are trained and selected for such missions. Those who can't handle it usually don't apply and the few that do are separated quickly in training. It's the rare individual indeed who gets all the way through the process and can't cope. Even the most mentally secure individuals do feel the affects of prolonged combat of course. That's why they are rotated from the field and treated properly afterwards. Sherman said it best, "War is ****", and nobody says otherwise. Even if we did leave Iraq and Afghanistan it wouldn't make war go away though. There will always be somebody who wants to take something from somebody. When that happens on a national scale war is the result. Likewise there will always be a need for those willing to take a stand for those who can't.

 

[Guest]

Originally Posted By: CarolynTom,

With all dues respect, having grown up around all branches of the armed forces, I understand why many who served IN the armed forces like the distinction.

However, to the general public anyone in the armed forces is a soldier. It is not meant as a putdown or to be disrespectful.

I know Air Men (Flight Jocks), Sea Men [swabys (sp?)], Marines (Jarheads), Soldiers are highly proud of the branch o f service they are in.

The point I am trying to make is you just need to cut civilians a little slack.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._Army_acronyms_and_expressions

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._Marine_Corps_acronyms_and_expressions

Carolyn, if it were just civilians in conversation I would certainly cut them slack, but as this is being reported as news I will hold them to a higher standard and to report the news accurately.

 

[arycrest]

Originally Posted By: GSDad
There is indeed a distinction. If you say "soldier" that will always be associated with the US Army (note the first definition listed). Likewise a marine is going to be associated with the US Marine Corps. If you want to use a label use it correctly. If you intend the generic then use US servicemember. That terms applies to everyone in uniform.

Oh, and if you really want to tick off a marine, just call him a "soldier".

 

[Guest]

Okay, obviously some folks don't get the need for clarification in the news. Here's an analogy: suppose an article had been posted about a pound and it was called a "rescue"? Hey, dogs get rescued from the street there right? Must be the same thing. Different roles different labels. I'm not going to argue this further. If you want to say "soldiers" about marines then go ahead. You'll be incorrect but you can think you're right all you want. If you report news about people who are marines as being soldiers then expect somebody to correct you. Far better to just report accurately to begin with. When you can't get the terminology correct it calls into question the rest of what you say as well. That's why the news must always be held to the highest standards of correct use of terms.

 

[towtrip]

Originally Posted By: GSDadOkay, obviously some folks don't get the need for clarification in the news. Here's an analogy: suppose an article had been posted about a pound and it was called a "rescue"?

Tom,

As much as we would like to THINK that the news reporters are careful in their use of labels, quite the opposite is true. Dog pounds are referred to as shelters and rescues all the time. To the media, they are interchangeable terms and there is no distinction.

Similarly, every dog that bites a person is labeled a "pit bull." The headlines are blaring, "CHILD ATTACKED BY PIT BULL." They never follow up to find out that the dog was really a labrador mix, a German shepherd mix or some other breed of dog.

Media does not seek to report for clarity; they seek to report for viewership/readership. "Soldier" has more marketability than "serviceman;" "shelter" sounds better than "pound;" "pit bull" is more sensational than "mutt."

 

[Guest]

And that's exactly my point, Susan. Don't you and everyone else involved in rescue make a point of correcting such inaccuracies? That's all I'm doing. I doubt anybody here would give you flack for doing so. I wish I could be understood similarly.