Dogs parachuted into Afghanistan

I already said 18, though this thread is about animals, I think we can agree that they cannot volunteer for the military, no?

They are not human and is rather silly to use human ideals and reasoning.


They are not putting themselves in the firing line in this situation.
:

What difference does that make, they do on a regular basis and on all sorts of missions, including house raids.
 
Avoiding combat by sacrificing others is cowardly, they can't face up to the situation so they must make others do it for them, I really don't know how to explain it any more simply than that...

So every Prime Minister and President (etc) going has been a coward for ordering troops to attack and die on their behest? Even in acts of defence of their realm?

What about those battle hardened Generals, top brass and commanders; someone has to do the job of control and direction - are they now cowards for looking at maps and directing movements?

They are not avoiding combat, they are avoiding unnecessary slaughter of human life. Tactically, it isn't the brightest. We've moved on from trenchwarfare on the whole, and destroying unconfimed targets/houses would only lead to the death of innoccent life.

Bravado isn't a good soldiers tool I wouldn't have thought.
 
They are not human and is rather silly to use human ideals and reasoning.

Not at all.

What difference does that make, they do on a regular basis and on all sorts of missions, including house raids.

None of that changes the fact that this act was cowardly.

So every Prime Minister and President going has been a coward for ordering troops to attack and die on their behest? Even in acts of defence of their realm?

What about those battle hardened General top brass and commanders; someone has to do the job of control and direction - are they now cowards for looking at maps and directing movements?

Did you read what I wrote? I said innocent, not volunteers.

They are not avoiding combat, they are avoiding unnecessary slaughter of human life. Tactically, it isn't the brightest. We've moved on from trenchwarfare on the whole, and destroying unconfimed targets/houses would only lead to the death of innoccent life.

Bravado isn't a good soldiers tool I wouldn't have thought.

By fighting a war you are guaranteeing the loss of innocent life in the first place.
 
Last edited:
None of that changes the fact that this act was cowardly.

It seriously isn't cowardness at all.

I'd hazzard a guess that the majority of these men have been involved in stuff that would trully frighten us on on here, I can't call them cowards.

Its a judgement call.

I love dogs, I love animals. I can't help but think you've just got animals too close to heart, and I think emotion is clouding your judgement labelling special forces cowards for using dogs in combat.

Aren't the police the exact same by your standards then?

Are they all cowards too?
 
It seriously isn't cowardness at all.

I'd hazzard a guess that the majority of these men have been involved in stuff that would trully frighten us on on here, I can't call them cowards.

Its a judgement call.

I love dogs, I love animals. I can't help but think you've just got animals too close to heart, and I think emotion is clouding your judgement labelling special forces cowards for using dogs in combat.

Aren't the police the exact same by your standards then?

Are they all cowards too?

Do the police typically sacrifice dogs by sending them into houses full of people with AK's?
 
Do soldiers sacarfice dogs, no they don't.

Do police officers use dogs on armed targets = yes. So that arguments falls over right away.
 
Did you read what I wrote? I said innocent, not volunteers.

Yes I did, and you are not making sense in context.

Innocent or volunteeers, the question still stands as you are calling them cowards for using animals.

I want to know how for your definition of coward is drawn.

Please answer the question, or I'll post it bit by bit again for you.



By fighting a war you are guaranteeing the loss of innocent life in the first place.

:confused:

And, does that mean you should just bomb the **** out of everyone just because someone said 'won't you think of the canines?!?'

Get real.
 
Do soldiers sacarfice dogs, no they don't.

Do police officers use dogs on armed targets = yes. So that arguments falls over right away.

I asked a question, that's not an argument.

Yes I did, and you are not making sense in context.

Innocent or volunteeers, the question still stands as you are calling them cowards for using animals.

I want to know how for your definition of coward is drawn.

Please answer the question, or I'll post it bit by bit again for you.

Coward is someone who sacrifices others to do the job they are supposed to be doing.


:confused:

And, does that mean you should just bomb the **** out of everyone just because someone said 'won't you think of the canines?!?'

Get real.

No it means you should either accept a risk of dying or not fight in a war.

:confused:

Do you read the newspapers at all?

They practically throw them into everything, from bombers to armed suspects.

I use websites. ;)

People who put animals at risk instead of themselves are cowards yes.
 
Coward is someone who sacrifices others to do the job they are supposed to be doing.
.

That's not what they are doing, the army using the tools it has to maximise efficiency and reduce casualties.

That is not the same thing as cowards. These people are in fire fights and do their jobs.
 
And that happens to be sacrificing animals.

No it is not, sacrificing Implies no use and certain out come of death. Not used appropriately with proper training and used in a way. Where they are likely to survive.
Dogs still cost a lot of money and effort to train.
 
Back
Top Bottom