Okay, this is a page back or so, but I wanted to respond:

[generalizing] I think it's because humans have a choice in the matter, for the most part. In Iraq, for example, the marines volunteered to fight (Because we don't have the draft, right?), and the groups making the IED's and such want to fight for whatever it is they want to fight for (religion, pushing out the 'invaders', etc.) The animals, however, can't really say anything or do anything against being abused or fought. I don't want it to be worded this way at all, but in a few words it could be said the dogs are "inferior", in that it would be very easy for a human to abuse/kill/harass a dog, while the opposite isn't true.[/generalizing]

Also, When I browsed over this story on FARK yesterday I think I heard that the marines were based in Hawaii (as has already been clarified a few times), and that yes, the proper authorities are taking action. Wheher or not the proper punishment is given is another story.

Also also, I know of someone that's in the national guard and he voices pretty much the same thing that Fifthfeind said; standards have been dropped signifigantly, to where anybody could join. This probably came from Bush's saying "we will not have a draft," thing I'm guessing.

Whoah, now I'm not saying that killing animals is ignorable because humans are dying, I just think that holding it in that light is ridiculous because the sick mind of these two marines has killed one dog, as opposed to the political folly of various leaders involved in the current war (and wars before it) which has led to the devastation of scores of innocent people. I'm not saying the marines have much choice in the people they kill once they go to war, but the politicians that fought so hard to make the war happened sure did.

Okay, okay. BETTER AND DIFFERENT TRAINING. There's no way to eliminate every problem, but they could certainly cut them back by taking care of their their people properly. Some folks have mentioned that marines are trained to kill and that that is their job, so of coruse they're killing things. But doing it wrong or for fun means they're uncontrolled and their training is inadequate in some way.

Like others have said, there seems to be a lack of quality people in the organization today. In fact, it's my established opinion, backed up damn near every time I walk outside, that there is a lack of quality people in general. People may always have been dicks but at least they weren't as in your face about it. Sometimes.

American soldiers are so bored that they,re willing to turn to the dark side for some entertainment =(

SAVE OUR TROOP'S SANITY!! NUKE THE MIDDLE EAST!!

(btw that was a joke)

Whatever.

Puppies are cute, yahoo. It's bad taste and a bit messed in the head to toss one off a cliff, and as far as animal cruelty laws go I'm sure that if it were true they'd be in violation of more than a few, but that's not enough to get someone kicked out of the military.

In short, I'm not outraged, in fact I don't care. One dog's life doesn't mean anything to me, far less when compared to the loss of thousands of human lives on both sides.

Hypocritical, reactionary, and pointless, that's what I'd call the backlash for this display. Would I have tossed a puppy off a cliff? Hell no, that's mean. But am I going to sit here and pretend to have a crisis of conscience when some jar head does? No.

Wow, thank you for putting into words what I've been trying to say since I saw this thread. I appreciate you keeping me from sounding like an ass.

From LJ Metaquote:

It's sad that some people care more about animals than they do about humans, but it's easier to care about something cute and fuzzy and marginally obedient than it is to care about someone who may be ugly, hairy, and has his or her own opinions, thoughts, and dreams. There ought to be room in the world for people to care and be upset every time any innocent creature, be it human or animal, is killed, maimed, or tortured for another creature's amusement.

"One death is a tragedy; a million is a statistic."


I think that pretty much sums it up. People would probably feel the same way, or at least similarly/maybe on a different level, if they saw a marine do the same thing to an Iraqi, provided they had a story for said person. A puppy is easy to make a story for in your mind. If, say, the following happened:



"No! Please! Don't throw me! I have a wife and three kids, a mortgage I'm on the verge of paying off, I was on my way to deliver medicine to my sick mother-!"

"Awwww! Ain't he cute?"

"No! HowaaaAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHH!!!!"

*thud*




people would probably still take offense.

hmmm
 

I somewhat agree with Lady Cygnet, but in general, I actually think the fact that people are so troubled by this is that a puppy is getting thrown off a cliff. The media overplays the fact that they are Marines, people would care just as much if it was Joe from down the lane. They just wouldn't know about it cause the media picks and chooses to create controversy, and thus, create ratings.
The only thing this proves about Marines is that they aren't psychicly tuned into the jerk-ass wave lengths of someones mind. I wouldn't have seen that coming.
As for why its so bad? A puppy is like a baby, totally innocent. I gaurentee that whether or not it was a Marine or not, a cell phone video of someone throwing a baby off a cliff would get even more media coverage.

Supposing the video is real in the first place.