There's a shocking military scandal that you may not know ab

[CCS]

What do you guys think?

http://getactive.peta.org/campaign/obam ... e2hj66ne85?

The U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) is directly responsible for the extreme suffering of countless goats, pigs, monkeys, and other animals.

Every year, thousands of live animals are shot, stabbed, dismembered, burned, and poisoned in routine trauma-training exercises under the misguided notion that such cruelty will prepare medics and members of the infantry to deal with battlefield injuries. It's horrific but true: The DoD subjects animals to every kind of violent injury that happens on the battlefield.



But despite effective and painless non-animal alternatives available for these trainings—including the DoD's own Combat Trauma Patient Simulator—the Department continues to maim and kill countless individual animals in gruesome and totally unnecessary ways, including the following:
Goats are stabbed, their veins are cut open, their chests are wounded, and their legs are amputated.
For military trauma training in Hawaii, pigs are shot, mutilated, and killed after enduring a five-day journey on crowded cargo ships.
These and other DoD-authorized but needless training exercises—and the horrific pain and suffering that they inflict on countless individual animals—could be stopped today without compromising military readiness or training.

It's urgent that we take action NOW to save these animals. Please join with PETA today by asking President Obama to issue an executive order immediately requiring the DoD to replace its use and abuse of live animals with more effective non-animal methods.

This is a fight that we can win—with your help.

Just last month, after intense pressure from PETA and our supporters around the world, the Bolivian government banned "the abuse and sacrifice of animals" in military exercises. This came just days after we released a shocking video that showed dogs who were mutilated alive during "training" exercises conducted by the Bolivian military. It's also that country's very first animal protection regulation.

PETA pressure works, and—with your support—we will do whatever is needed to persuade the DoD to stop hurting animals.

PETA leads the fight to stop animal testing. Our goal is to expose the abuse wherever it occurs, call in our activist "troops" to shut it down, and push for more effective and cruelty-free alternatives. But we need your support to win this battle against the DoD and others like it.

 

[CCS]

I think video taping it once would be enough to give medics the shocker they need. They could watch the vedio over and over again. Or have some real battle ground footage. I don't see why they need repeated practice on dogs and monkeys.

 

[HughJass]

what evidence do they have?


I know animals are used (killed) in survival courses in most western armies as well as using animal blood to 'prep' SF soldiers, but never heard of that kind of treatment described in that article. I've have seen photos and footage of soldiers killing puppies and rabbits for no apparent reason at public military demonstrations but they were egyptian and iraqi special forces units.


Sucks if it's true.

 

[patagonia]

This is fukin horrible.

 

[CCS]

I wonder if spam artists are sending out fake petitions to get people's home addresses.

Maybe not even spam artists. Maybe stockers who know my email address are coming up with fake petitions and websites just to find out where I live. I should think twice before giving out my home address anymore.

 

[chore boy]

Awww... you guys mind if I join in your little pity party?

How can this be even remotely true?:

"Please join with PETA today by asking President Obama to issue an executive order immediately requiring the DoD to replace its use and abuse of live animals with more effective non-animal methods."

More effective non-animal methods? Like what, a simulator? What can possibly be more effective than actually stopping the bleeding from a real-life, traumatic injury which is what these animals are used for? PETA is nothing more than a bunch of hypocritical hippies. They're against the use of animal testing and products until the VP of PETA needs insulin then it's like... "Oh, I need to stay alive and continue the fight". Hahaha... *please*.

Don't let these hippies fool you... these animals' sacrifices are saving peoples lives... namely those soldiers putting their life on the line so you can sit around drinking Starbucks all day. These animals aren't being slaughtered for no reason... they're being slaughtered because, like I said, there isn't a more realistic way to treat a battlefield-caliber wound than actually treating one.

 

[ClayShaw]

Awww... you guys mind if I join in your little pity party?

How can this be even remotely true?:

"Please join with PETA today by asking President Obama to issue an executive order immediately requiring the DoD to replace its use and abuse of live animals with more effective non-animal methods."

More effective non-animal methods? Like what, a simulator? What can possibly be more effective than actually stopping the bleeding from a real-life, traumatic injury which is what these animals are used for? PETA is nothing more than a bunch of hypocritical hippies. They're against the use of animal testing and products until the VP of PETA needs insulin then it's like... "Oh, I need to stay alive and continue the fight". Hahaha... *please*.

Don't let these hippies fool you... these animals' sacrifices are saving peoples lives... namely those soldiers putting their life on the line so you can sit around drinking Starbucks all day. These animals aren't being slaughtered for no reason... they're being slaughtered because, like I said, there isn't a more realistic way to treat a battlefield-caliber wound than actually treating one.

The line about sitting around drinking starbucks is ridiculous... Please. Soldiers are in Iraq so I can drink coffee?? Does anyone really believe that?? Soldiers are in Iraq because a bunch of wussy neocons thought it would be neat to try to prove a little theory they had and at the same time help Israel. Thats it, nothing more.
ER docs don't train by killing animals. I work at a medical school. If it's not necessary for ER docs, I don't see how it's necessary for military docs, as ER docs in big cities treat injuries that are probably somewhat similar to battlefield injuries (i.e. gunshot wounds).
Once your argument revolves around "hippies" and "drinking starbucks all day", you don't really have an argument at all.

 

[chore boy]

Obviously, soldiers aren't Iraq so we can drink coffee. You're missing the point. These soldiers are there defending the lifestyles we take for granted in the USA. Regardless of why they're there, we should support them 150%. Not saying you or anyone here doesn't support the troops... I'm just sayin'.

Sure, you can read your little textbooks and work on a cadaver or two... "Alright, I need to cauterize this and clamp that artery to treat that wound". All that's fine, but how would you know if you saved a creature's life or not unless you actually saved it. I'm sure massive amounts of knowledge has been passed down in trauma medicine and there might be alternative learning platforms but for some reason, I'm not sure there's a better way to train people.

We sit around all day and watch countless rodents be lead to their deaths so scientists can find a cure for diseases, including hairloss. Not really a big deal because it's for the benefit of man, right? Would there be this "outrage" if it was a university sacrificing these animals? As you probably know, the anatomy of a pig and of a human are very similar. Do you really think that our military is killing those pigs and other animals for no reason?

 

[The Gardener]

Obviously, soldiers aren't Iraq so we can drink coffee. You're missing the point. These soldiers are there defending the lifestyles we take for granted in the USA.

Really?

My lifestyle was a HECK of a lot better in 2000 than it is right now. I think many others would agree...

 

[chore boy]

You're free to live whatever type of lifestyle you want. Your situation now versus then really doesn't have anything to do with trauma simulators or the rights we have as Americans.

 

[ClayShaw]

I have the utmost respect for people who choose to join the military, especially those who know they're going to see combat.
That does not mean that we need to elevate them to some sort of untouchable status.
I don't think that soldiers in Iraq are defending anyone's lifestyle. Maybe the lifestyles of people in Israel, certainly not those of people in America. Saddam Hussein never was, and never would have been a threat to America. He wasn't even a threat to Israel. Removing him created a threat to Israel, but thats a whole different discussion. WWII... definitely defending a "lifestyle". Afghanistan, yes. Iraq, definitely not.
Medical textbooks are not "little" at all. They're quite large, and generally very heavy.

 

[Bryan]

I don't think that soldiers in Iraq are defending anyone's lifestyle. Maybe the lifestyles of people in Israel, certainly not those of people in America. Saddam Hussein never was, and never would have been a threat to America. He wasn't even a threat to Israel. Removing him created a threat to Israel, but thats a whole different discussion. WWII... definitely defending a "lifestyle". Afghanistan, yes. Iraq, definitely not.

Oh, I think those statements are pretty arguable. At the very least, Saddam Hussein learned the hard way that we were SERIOUS about holding him to the UN stipulations to which he had agreed. He broke that agreement, and it cost him dearly. I can't get too upset about that.

 

[ClayShaw]

I don't think that soldiers in Iraq are defending anyone's lifestyle. Maybe the lifestyles of people in Israel, certainly not those of people in America. Saddam Hussein never was, and never would have been a threat to America. He wasn't even a threat to Israel. Removing him created a threat to Israel, but thats a whole different discussion. WWII... definitely defending a "lifestyle". Afghanistan, yes. Iraq, definitely not.

Oh, I think those statements are pretty arguable. At the very least, Saddam Hussein learned the hard way that we were SERIOUS about holding him to the UN stipulations to which he had agreed. He broke that agreement, and it cost him dearly. I can't get too upset about that.

What about them is arguable?
Obviously its unprovable that neocons like Wolfowitz, Perl, Feith and others were acting with Israel's interests in mind, and I admit that I dont know thats the case for sure.
I think it was a combination of factors, that being one of them. Rumsfelds desire to prove his theories about a smaller, lighter, faster moving fighting force is another reason, and explains why people like Shinseki were so quickly dismissed. The desire among the neocons to remake the middle east and install their guy, Chalabi, was another reason. All of it failed. Now its clean up and get the hell out time.
I can get upset about the cost of the war, both in opportunity cost and the true cost. The 4200+ American KIA. Tens of thousands wounded. The rise of Iran. The inability to counter threats elsewhere should they arise.
Saddam was never a threat to America, and the aftermath of the war has proven that.
Of course Saddam didn't want people to know what he did or didn't have. He lived in the toughest neighborhood in the world, so why would he want to advertise his neighbors that he was unarmed? Seems fairly obvious to me...
Iraq will be brought into the discussion anytime another president wants to fight a war of choice. If you need to lie to start a war, thats the first clue that something isn't right. If you need to out CIA agents to keep your case credible, thats a good sign that something is wrong....
Why aren't we as serious with N. Korea? Thats a country that has the bomb, has a serious need for cash, and a crazy leader.
Pakistan? At the time of the invasion of Iraq, Pakistan was a nuclear state run by a military with documented connections to extremist groups.
Basically, there is no credible argument for the invasion that doesn't apply to a least a few other countries as well.
What I'll never understand is why nerds with a hard on for violence (like Feith) choose Iraq. I don't think oil is the reason. Maybe partially, but not totally. Maybe it was because they had a guy the neocons loved (Chalabi) ready (so they thought) to run the place?

 

[The Gardener]

I love this Counterpunch website. Quality essays every day.

One piece from today's Counterpunch, describing how torture was used to try to get detainees into "confessing" information that could be used to create a link between Iraq and Al Qaeda:

http://www.counterpunch.org/worthington04292009.html

In his testimony to the Senate Committee, Maj. Burney wrote that “a large part of the time we were focused on trying to establish a link between al-Qaeda and Iraq and we were not successful in establishing a link between al-Qaeda and Iraq. The more frustrated people got in not being able to establish that link … there was more and more pressure to resort to measures that might produce more immediate results.â€￾

“It seems to me they were using torture to achieve a political objective.â€￾

 

[ClayShaw]

I love this Counterpunch website. Quality essays every day.

One piece from today's Counterpunch, describing how torture was used to try to get detainees into "confessing" information that could be used to create a link between Iraq and Al Qaeda:

http://www.counterpunch.org/worthington04292009.html

In his testimony to the Senate Committee, Maj. Burney wrote that “a large part of the time we were focused on trying to establish a link between al-Qaeda and Iraq and we were not successful in establishing a link between al-Qaeda and Iraq. The more frustrated people got in not being able to establish that link … there was more and more pressure to resort to measures that might produce more immediate results.â€￾

“It seems to me they were using torture to achieve a political objective.â€￾

I'll never understand why they thought that would even be possible. Anyone who knows Iraq knows that Hussein saw islamic fundamentalism as a threat to his rule, and had no patience for it. Only after the invasion did he find religion... when it suited him. Saddam was no friend of Al-Qaeda, and lots of people knew that very well before the war started. But, since al-Qaeda was behind the 9/11 attacks, and the 9/11 attacks were used to justify a war that many had been pushing for since the Clinton administration, it makes sense that they would try to cook up a connection.

 

[chore boy]

No denying there's something deeper to every story. But you have to admit... if nothing else, Saddam was guilty of crimes against humanity. About the only thing I see him good for was that it was through those tactics of carnage, he was able to maintain order in a very volatile country.

Iran is shady as hell and N. Korea is like a 15-year-old, rebellious teenager... "Fuk you, I'm grown; I'll do what I want". Do you guys think that we'd see military intervention in either one of those countries? Personally, I think we'd see it in N. Korea before Iran.

 

[ClayShaw]

No denying there's something deeper to every story. But you have to admit... if nothing else, Saddam was guilty of crimes against humanity. About the only thing I see him good for was that it was through those tactics of carnage, he was able to maintain order in a very volatile country.

Iran is shady as hell and N. Korea is like a 15-year-old, rebellious teenager... "Fuk you, I'm grown; I'll do what I want". Do you guys think that we'd see military intervention in either one of those countries? Personally, I think we'd see it in N. Korea before Iran.

Absolutely agree. What he did to the Kurds and the Shiites was awful... definitely crimes against humanity.
I also think Iraq shouldn't be one country. It only is because some British guy drew lines on a map. It should have been 3 to start with. I also think his rule, and his promotion of 20% of the population (Sunnis) at the expense of everyone else is at least partially responsible for the violence between Sunni's and Shias now. Obviously, that fight is what, 1400 years old (?), so he didn't start it, but I don't think he helped either.
The only problem I have is he is not alone in that, and that alone is not justification to attack him.
Zimbabwe is a mess, thanks to Mugabe. al-Bashir in the Sudan is a nut. Than Shwe is not good for the people of Burma. Lukashenko shows no signs of ever giving up power in Belarus, same with Chavez in Venezuela. How do you pick which ones to go after?
I think Iran is a little more complicated. Domestically, things are bad, I'm sure, but I'm not sure that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is a threat to anyone outside Iran. I think most of what he says about Israel is political posturing designed to play to some sentiments within Iran. He does run for office, so he has to make voters like him. As far as I know he has not gone after his country's own Jewish population. I think what he says is sort of like his version of our "freedom fries" idiocy. Also remember that Israel is the only nuclear state in the region, and from Iran's point of view, developing the bomb to deter Israel probably makes sense. Netanyahu and Lieberman are not men of peace, and I can see why they might make Iran nervous. IIRC, Israel asked Bush to let them attack Iran, and in a rare moment of intelligence, he said no.
N. Korea is a different story. I don't think the Chinese would accept an invasion of N. Korea. I think the Russians would also be very upset about it. N. Korea also has a huge standing army, so we'd be dealing with a lot of enemy fighters in a small area.
I think the biggest threat to America right now is the instability in Pakistan, and the potential that that country's nuclear arsenal could fall into the hands of the Taliban. The Taliban is crazy enough to use the nukes. I think the possibility that Kim Jong-Il gets hard up for cash and decides to sell his nukes to the highest bidder is a real threat. I think if any western country invaded N. Korea, he'd start lobbing nukes at Japan/S. Korea (Korea) real quick.
I don't know ChoreBoy, you seem interested in this stuff, what do you think? War with N. Korea? Iran?
I personally hope not.
I think the decision to commit US forces is the biggest decision anyone can ever make, and I don't think Bush thought it through with respect to Iraq. I don't think he had a clear exit strategy, or even an occupation strategy. I can not forgive him for that. Sending young people to die and get maimed is a huge deal, and I would want to be 200% sure it was absolutely necessary.
And just to be clear, I'm no peacenik. I'm not someone who thinks we should have sat out WWII, or not gone into Afghanistan. There are times when I think violence is necessary. I think if you attack America, you fucked up, and you get to die. Saddam did not, and did not have any clear plans to, and therefore I don't think he was worth one american finger, let alone an american life... Let alone 4000+. Not to mention PTSD, the very wounded, etc.
I have not served in the military, so its not as personal for me as it is for some, and those are just my opinions.

 

[ClayShaw]

Soldiers deal with death. Death is ok on the batlefield. Killing animals for "no reason" is not correct: it has a reason, and it's a psycological readiness to deal with blood and killing.
For example russian spetsnaz (SF) are used to swim in a blood corridor, to climb on blood-covered walls and so on. Killing a dog with a knife is a test, and then to disembowel a pregnant cat with a knife alive, and making fun of those unborn kitties.
The rules of war and military preparation do not match the "normal" morality or principles. So I'm sorry, don't judge about such special things, military specialists are one of the best you can find and they know what they do.

Ok, now I'm convinced this dude is a little crazy.
I know quite a few guys who went into the Army/Marines, and I'm pretty sure they didn't kill dogs or cats.

 

[ClayShaw]

Ok, now I'm convinced this dude is a little crazy.
I know quite a few guys who went into the Army/Marines, and I'm pretty sure they didn't kill dogs or cats.

I'm not sure about regular soldiers, but russian SF have such trainings. Russians may suck at everything, but not at war, as they put into it all the best resources of former union. And the funding and efforts were just collossal. There's no way they could be wrong doing that.

I think the Soviet Union was wrong about pretty much everything, except maybe hockey.

 

[ali777]

But you have to admit... if nothing else, Saddam was guilty of crimes against humanity. About the only thing I see him good for was that it was through those tactics of carnage, he was able to maintain order in a very volatile country.

Saddam was an evil man.... No one can argue the opposite.

However, water boarding, detention in Guantanamo without a trial, execution of Saddam after a dodgy trial, refusing to sign the Geneva convention, illegal CIA prisoner transfers, etc demonstrate the respect you have for human rights as well.

I find it very ironic that you can freely criticise other countries, but you have a total disregard for human rights.

__________________________________________________________

On the subject of animals..... Someone mentioned that doctors are capable of working in stressful situations without killing animals... I have an idea, why don't we make the soldiers work in the ER as male nurses, some sort of temporary role that they can do with little training? That way, they get to deal with life and death all the time, and they get exposed to blood.

I personally do not have a problem with killing animals. I was brought up in a farming community, and killing animals was the norm. That doesn't mean I enjoy it, but it's something that I would do if I have to feed myself. The stress here is on "HAVE TO DO IT FOR FOOD".