What do we think about dogs as soldiers?

[Anonymous]

Lighthearted (I hope) conversation starter:

What do you think about the military using dogs in combat situations?

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/05/science/05dog.html?_r=1

I think I'm for it. They have skills people don't have, are more versatile than machines, and most importantly, the service dogs I've known have gotten a big sense of satisfaction from doing the task the're trained for.

Does anyone object to dogs in combat?

[Anonymous]

is this a joke? why would anyone object? dogs have been used by armies since well before Roman times.

[Anonymous]

Hope they don't get PTSD. Some animals in war zones suffer terribly from this too. They also use dolphins to plant bombs on the bottom sides of boats.

[Anonymous]

I don't object to dogs as soldiers. War dogs are an ancient tradition, and the bravest and most loyal soldiers, responsible for saving thousands of lives. They are working dogs, and get their greatest pleasure serving as they do.

What I do object to is: (1) your icky use of "we" in your subject header; and (2) your (likely disingenuous) suggestion that you intend (or that there can be) a "lighthearted" conversation about dogs in war. Very, very strange on both counts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't object to dogs as soldiers. War dogs are an ancient tradition, and the bravest and most loyal soldiers, responsible for saving thousands of lives. They are working dogs, and get their greatest pleasure serving as they do.

What I do object to is: (1) your icky use of "we" in your subject header; and (2) your (likely disingenuous) suggestion that you intend (or that there can be) a "lighthearted" conversation about dogs in war. Very, very strange on both counts.

I always hate when people write "this," but I actually agree with everything in the above post, down to the use of the word "icky."

[Anonymous]

I concur. There is no humor to be found in canine militarism.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't object to dogs as soldiers. War dogs are an ancient tradition, and the bravest and most loyal soldiers, responsible for saving thousands of lives. They are working dogs, and get their greatest pleasure serving as they do.

What I do object to is: (1) your icky use of "we" in your subject header; and (2) your (likely disingenuous) suggestion that you intend (or that there can be) a "lighthearted" conversation about dogs in war. Very, very strange on both counts.

I always hate when people write "this," but I actually agree with everything in the above post, down to the use of the word "icky."

I never, ever agree with the use of the word icky by an adult. What should I type?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I concur. There is no humor to be found in canine militarism.

What a great name for a band - Canine Militarism.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I concur. There is no humor to be found in canine militarism.

Totally agree with this. I work with law enforcement agencies and if you've seen the reaction of an officer who lost his canine in 9-11, you would never use the word light hearted. You either don't like dogs or military. Or you're an idiot.