Click Here to Read Article
Should the U.S. continue to use these dogs or would you consider this a form of animal cruelty? What would be the costs of not using the dogs anymore? What are the benefits? Do you think the benefits outweigh the costs or the other way around?
73 comments:
i think that the u.s should still use these dogs. if they chose not to use the dogs there is a chance that there evidence is not as accurate as it would be with the dogs.so these dogs are benefitial and the benefit do overweigh the cost.
I think the U.S. should continue to use the dogs for military purposes.I Do not consider this a gorm of animal cruelty simply because it is for a good cause and not just for fun.
Dyamond Nelson 2B
I, being a very liberal person, believe that it is a very clear form of animal cruelty. Sure using dogs on a narcotics force is fine. They have proven to be very useful in such cases. However to send a dog into combat? Or even after criminals who likely have no problem slaughtering an animal? Thats wrong on levels I can't even begin to describe. I don't believe there is a cost in this case considering the extent to which this country actually funds their military. I'm sure they could find some other way. The benefits? For starters the soldiers may feel more compelled to put in a lot more effort. Dogs dont have to suffer.etc. The benifits outweigh the costs to no end.
Ayinde Michael 1A
OMG this is sad I dont think they should se dogs at all. I mean cops are ok to use them but not the millatary that is horrible for a dog to experience the military.If they dont use dogs anymore they wont know who is near. the benefits are that dogs are going to suffer. i dont really knowwhat they are going to do about the benifits outweigh. i just dont want animal cruelty
CLARISSA HERNANDEZ 4A
I don't think that the U.S. should continue use dogs I find that to be animal cruelty. It would coast a good amount if we didn't have dogs anymore but in my opinion I think it would be worth the coast. The benefits would be that we would saving dogs, we wouldn't have to make them suffer, and there would be more dogs around for their owners. I think the benefits outweigh the coast because at the end of the day their still dogs and I believe saving and helping dogs or animals in general don't have a price tag on it period. I rather pay for the coast and help dogs because dogs are just like people and we don't like going through emotional distress so why should dogs if they have emotions so? That's something to think about right there.
Truthfully I believe the U.S. should use the dogs but then I think they shouldnt. Its not animal cruelty but what they are doing is hurting the dogs in a way. For me I love dogs I hate seeing dogs in bad conditions. If my dog had PTSD I would cry everyday shes like my baby I wouldnt want anything to happen to her. But dogs do have better noses and sight then humans and help a lot in the military. But when the signs start showing the they have PTSD I think they should be sent home.
My opinion is that it is better to use the dogs because they have stronger senses than humans. What are they doing to the dogs that is so aggressive. They are caring more about how the dog is feeling they dont understand that the human goes through it first. A military dog is the same as a police, or fire dog. They help the community. Dogs are very useful and i think it does not make sense for them to say it is animal cruelty. America is so confused these days.
I think the military should keep using the dogs just like they keep using the humans i mean if a og go crazy then it is sad but a humans life is more valuable than a dog so if anyone should get treatment and breaks off or retirement is the humans who has been in the war and most likely no one will want the dogs after being in the military anyways plus they have better senses so helps out our military alot
KEVIN HOLSTON 2B
I agree with kevin, a hunman's life is much more valuable than a dogs. If you were to save a human or a dog most likely you would choose the person. It seems cruel but thats how the world is. Its sad to say that because i love dogs and they should be able to have a playful happy life but sometimes you have to just sacrifice to help someone who may need it more. If they take the dogs out of the force, it may be harder to find the enemy but at least you arent being sruel to the animal. Its like a catch 22 because you want to save the dog from having a type a life like that but you have to save a human as well they may have a family or a future. Its very hard to say.
Chyna M. 3B
I think they should keep using the dogs because they are really usefull and idont think it is animal cruelty.if they didnt use the dogs it would take alot more time to solve the case sometimes.
marquis wright
period 2a
Diamond Nicholas 2B
Yes the U.S should keep using dogs because they are not abusing or harming the dogs. I think the cot of not using the dogs anymore would be that they have more to do and really would find any clues to me its 50/50
Yes, I do believe that using dogs in the military is a form of animal cruelty because the dogs are being killed while they are in service. But, I also believe that there are more pros than cons. The dogs have provided a lot of help for the military and have saved a lot of lives.
Justin Boone 1B
This is Sick . Your using dogs in the military -__- thats not just animal cruelty thats cruel for the humans ! it's suppose to be a fair fight between man and man so why use animals to help ? that's basically jumping anyways . yes the dogs have feeling and emotions and MEMORY to of course it's animal cruelty and as for the financial stuff WE DONT NEED ANOTHER DRAFT cos i won't go and end up in jail but yeah we have enough men and women over there to support us , don't USE DOGS -__-
-Jyleke
I Think This Is Very Sad!!!Like The People Said Above Me I Think It Is Fine For The Cops Because The Cops Are Not Around Bombs And Shooting Constantly So I Think It Is Animal Cruelty.
KaylaFaulk:3B
Yes They Should Keep On Using Dogs, If One Dog Can Save Multiple Human Lives, I Think Its Worth It. If Its Animal Cruelty Then Why Isn't It Human Cruelty ? The Soldiers Are Suffering As Well As The Dogs, I Think Our Troops Deserve A Little Help From The Dogs.
-Gregory Scott-
To Be Honest the u.s. should Be more Skeptical about using the canines because when dealing with an Animal that can over power you , can become a serious risk because most animals like a German sheppard & Rottweilers can turn on their owners . But in other Terms When you have too use force too get control of the animal. It seems like it's animal cruelty. And so far the only cost of not using these dogs is finding Narcotics because Cainines have A Strong Smell Detector for finding Drugs.
DONALD MOORE
PERIOD 4A
I think they should keep using the dogs but then again I don't think they should. It's okay for the police but not the military they have enough men for the job. But if the dogs are doing a good job at it then hey keep them
I think that the U.S. stop using these dogs for the military because dogs already do enough to helps us humans such as help police men of fire fighters and help blind people or guard our houses.in my opinion this is considered as animal cruelty because dogs may be in danger of dying and to me this is very messed up. the costs of not using the dogs anymore is that they have nothing to lose ,they already have enough soldiers. although the dogs help detect bombs they could try doing something else for a change.
Belky Carbajal
Period:4A
Me Being A Dog Lover All My Life I Do Believe This Is Cruel.Why Put The Dogs Through All Of The Trauma When You Have Fire Power (Guns) To Protect Yourself,I Just Think Its Unnecessary For The Dogs To Have To Help.Then You Have To Think About All The Post Traumatic Problems That The Dogs Might Have,Yea Its Treateable But iDont Think You Should Put Them Through The Trouble,Cause They Will Never Forget.
Lyric-Freeman Period:2A I Think The U.s. Should Still Use The Dogs They Are Good At Sniffing Things Up It Makes It Easy For Detectives And Police To Locate Things. Without the dogs it would take them way longer to find bodys or drugs or whatever.the benefits do not overweigh any thing the dogs protects and save lifes like they can sense bombs and things they can save alot of peoples lifes
I think using the dogs are helpful bacause they can sniff and find things. the cost of not using this dogs can be very bad, it would be harder to find those in danger, etc.
Mary Grace Jose/1B
this can be considered bias because the dogs are helping with the military service and even though i do feel very terrible because of the diseases and the trauma the dogs will recieve. Animal cruelty is beating or harming the dog but in this case it can also be very helpful. Even though some are dying, they are dying for the cause of benefiting out country.
Mary Grace Jose/1B
I think these dogs are needed for protection and search purposes. Idont think however, that dogs should be abused in this line of work though. If we were to not use these dogs as we curently do, then our search teams would be surverly shot. The only possiable benefits that could come from releasing the dogs are less tax.
Kevin Banks 1B
My opinion about this article is that they should and shouldn't continue to use these canines for war. They should because they are good protectors as well as there senses are way better then any humans so they can spot out things before anyone else from distances. So this is cruel but my strongest opinion about this is that they should leave the dogs at home they really don't belong in wars unless there is a certain way that humans would be able to understand them clearly when there is a serious problem other then that just keep them home at home with family
oops i mean 1A
If The U.S Knows Exactly What this Is Doing TO THE Dogs Then this Is Animal Cruilty The Dogs Should Not Be Used FOR Such Things As These We Need TO Love Our Dogs Not TrainThem TO Be War Bound Dogs. If The Dogs Are As Messed Up As The People In The War Then Something Must Be Done !
Marquis Anbaz
2B
I have mixed feelings about this article. It seems these dogs are serving their country as well as any human being would and they seem to be very valuable with sniffing out explosives and other tasks. On the other hand if these animals aren't secure and are suffering from similar symptoms as human beings they shouldn't be sent to war against there will. It's harder for a dog suffering from these symptoms because they can't tell the doctor what's wrong with them.
I Think That they should continue using dogs because there animals. Animals are on this planet for our use.I feel that way atlease. More humans would be sacrificed if they dont use dogs anymore, but if they did stop using them then they could use them for other things that are important. I Think the benefits outweigh the costs.
Virgil 4A
I have mixed thoughts on this issue. One because I love dogs have an pet of my own and I love him. I wouldn't want my dog to act different or become more aggressive with me, But on the other hand the dog do save lives and protect us from things we can't smell or find. So the dogs are saving lives and were just messing them up from war. I really am stuck between the two. This is my opinion on the issue.
Rayven Jones 2A
I Think The U.S Should Continue Using These Dogs, Because It Isnt A Form Of Animal Cruelty. The Costs Of Not Using The Dogs Anymore Will Probably Negative, Due To The Fact That The Dog Can Do Many Tasks Including Helping A Soldier During Battle, Like Finding A Hidden Enemy. I Think The Benifits Outweigh The Costs By Alot. Even Though The Animals Emotions Are Being Effect, And That Can Effect How They Act Afterwards, Its Not Like A Soldier Is Actually Kicking The Dog. The Dog Is Experiencing Trauma From Combat. (Tyrone Koehler-Jones 2A)
I don't think that the u.s should keep using dogs because in the article it says that the dogs are benign affected by it. If they stopped using dogs they may not get much done buy if they continue to use the dogs then more dogs will be damaged by the events.
Deche Neal
I don't think its animal cruelty, dogs risk there lives for a reason because were family to them and dogs hate to see a family member who took care of them all there lives, and also also dog help us in a big way if there no way around and we need help well dog help us though that tough situations. but dogs should be used for miltary and cops but sometimes cops abuse dogs to. jamal hailey 2A
I do think that the they should countinie using dogs. I am a dog lover and i do not think that this is animal cruelty. I think that if they stop using dogs then it would be hard to find missing people, solve case ect. Even if the dogs do get PTSD they can do the treatment and hopefully it works on them. It is more likely for humans to get PTSD than dogs, so letting the dogs do this is not cruel.
Shannon Weaver
2A
I think the U.S. should continue to use the dogs in war. Humans suffer from the same disease and they havent stop sending them so why stop sending dogs. If they dont use the dogs, they will probally lose an advantage in war because dogs can be used to locate people and certain items. The only benefit is that no more dogs will suffer. I think letting a little bit of dogs suffer is whats best because the things they do in war are too valuable for the U.S.
I believe the U.S. should defiantly continue to use these dogs in military purposes. They could be very helpful and useful. Dogs are great with finding and locating important prospects of information. By using these dogs could put an end to criminal abilities. This is not at all any form of animal cruelty. They perform a great act towards society. These dogs are not in any way harming but only helping us.
Karisa Johnson 4A
I think that this isn't animal cruelty, however that should lessen how much the dogs do. The cost could be that we would be able to fight as well. The benefits are they able to find things that humans are not able to do. I do think that the benefits out weight the cost, because if we are able to find out terrorist. We can have the upper hand on fighting
Nace Denton-Hurst 4A
The U.S. should not stop using these dogs. I mean think about it, better them than us. Everybody wants to cry a river for the soldiers when they die and now for the dogs too? Bs. We need the dogs to prevent even more deaths overseas. This isn't animal cruelty, animals were put on this planet to help humans thrive and if we didn't do things like test on them we wouldn't have some of our everyday necessities such as deodorant and toothpaste. And in this case it's with bombs and keeping our troops healthy. Let's just realize this will never banned and improve treatment.
i think that they should still use these dogs because dogs have better sense of smell and hearing. dogs help a lot with police crime cases and in the military some even become hero's and recognized. its could be animal cruelty in a way because of the harm the dogs go throw when there in war or in serious cases they can even get injured.
*^ Paula Ramos 4-A^*
It's a bitter sweet situation using the dogs in combat , and special military situations. It's somewhat a form of military cruelty but , the dogs are needed so that our military officers can protect us. Its unfortunate that dogs are negatively affected by the combat and what they deal with. I am suprised that dogs can get disorders dealing with those kind of situations. So to answer that question yes and no, but if they could handle those problems without the dogs they would. I believe they should continue to use the dogs but allow them to get treatment before there disease gets worse.
-Cailyn Thomas
1B
I think the U.S should use these dogs because they have a good nose. Also they see and smell things we cant. It isnt animal cruelty to me because these dogs are trained to find out things about bad people. They Also Do what we cant. If we stopped using these dogs most people would get away with the things that they do. If they stop using the dogs then this country wouldnt be safe.
This is animal cruelty because they can't stick up for themselves they can not for a gun up and defend there selves like police dogs can.
Taurean Jones 1A
I think we should still use these dogs. They are beneficial to us. They do more good than harm. They help us when we are in need. So why not make use of them.
Rikieshia Brown
4A
Adam Pinkney 4A
If they stopped using the dogs then they couldn't find evidence as easily as they could with the dogs. The dogs can help chase down criminals. They need the dogs because sometimes they won't be able to do certain things that a dog can that will benefit them.
I think it should continue, however they should lighten up on how much the dogs do. The cost of not using dogs could give us a lesser chance of find drugs. The benefits are that the dogs have better smell than humans. Yes I do, but however there should be precautions taken, so that the dogs do not end up with an illness.
Nace Denton-Hurst
4A
I think that the benifits are great but at the same token the same dogs whom have been introduced to this war have been suffering from PTSD..so I think that the cost out weight the bebifites even though the dogs save a number of lives every day I think the military should use something else
Charles Bridgeforth 4A
I think the U.S. should keep using the dogs because dogs have better instinct then humans. They can find people before we could. I don't think this is animal cruelty because we need them and we are still feeding them good and giving them a good home. If we didnt use dogs then we would probably move slower and act slower on the battle field. I don't think there are any benefits if we stop using them. Yes I do think the benefits outweigh the cost too.
I think the U.S. should keep using the dogs because dogs have better instinct then humans. They can find people before we could. I don't think this is animal cruelty because we need them and we are still feeding them good and giving them a good home. If we didnt use dogs then we would probably move slower and act slower on the battle field. I don't think there are any benefits if we stop using them. Yes I do think the benefits outweigh the cost too.
I think the US should stop using dogs in the war all together because it is affecting them more. The effects of not using the dogs anymore would be that they wouldn't be able to smell for them and find certain stuff that the military is looking for.Now a days we don't even really need the dogs we have special technology for that now.
Maya Robinson
4/A
Terrell Proctor
2A
I believe that the U.S should still use the dogs in battle. I say this because a dos ears and nose is 2X better than ours so this way they know where the enemies are on the battlefield. Plus they are much faster than us so they could also catch them faster also so that way the enemies are easier to kill.The costs of not having dogs could be catastrophic! The number on solders (or troops) dead could increase dramatically. This way we could lose the battle big time. I believe we get more benefits out of dogs because they keep us aware of things around the battlefield so this way we are more agile on the field.
i think the u.s still should use these dogs because senses are much better than us humans. If the dog comes down with the disease just simply retire the dog and bring in another healthy dog. Not saying that dogs lives arent precious but just to nsure security.
To me, I say that the U.S. should continue to use these dogs. It's not exactly animal cruelty, unless you force the dog to do its task if it is seriously injured or has a personal issue. the main task for the canines are to find explosives or human target, and without them, it would make things harder for the men and women in the Navy. With this, the benefits outweigh the costs.
I believe the U.S. should still use these dogs but they should have more breaks and vacations from their duties. The cost of not using these animals would be drastic. Criminals could hide from the authority and go free without punishment. The benefits of using these dogs is that they could smell illegal substances. I believe the benefit outweighs the costs as long as any condition that may or may not happen can be treated.
Tariq Abdullah-2A
This is kind of a complicated topic simply because of the situation results in what they call a "Catch 22". If the dogs are used for aid in the war then they are to return with a mental effect that will change who they aree the rest of their lives. If the are not brought along, there are higher chances at defeat. I dont believe that using the dogs is a sign of animal cruelty especially when human have the same chances of death or mental defect as they do. I honestly think that the U.S. is not going to stop using the dogs because of the treatment we have to make them "back to normal". Even though the medicine does not completely heal their mind, the government will take that and run with it. Sad to say.
I think we should not use the dogs simply becasue they do not have the advantages like a human does. Not knowing what you are getting yourself into is scary.......:(
-Jackie
DeShauna Wilson
Period. 2B
I think that the U.S should continue to use the dogs for military but at the same time I dont think that the military should use the dogs anymore. First of all I say yes because the dogs are helping them locate bombs and helping them by keeping a look out for themselves and their handlers. I say no they shouldnt use the dogs because being in the war is really traumatizng these dogs, some things you just cant unsee and like the article said dogs dont forget anything. I would definitely consider this as a form of animal cruelty. The cost of not using the dogs would be not being able to locate dangerous things on the battefield such as nuclear bombs etc. The benifit would be that not so many dogs would have to go through the traumatization that goes along with the war. I think that its goes either way, its 50/50.
in my opinion i think that its good that they use dogs because dogs have a better sense of smelling and hearing then human do and that will help out to look for whatever they may be looking for but once they notice that the dogs are getting sick they should let them go because that is considered animal cruelty i love dogs and if myy dog where to get sick i would do anything to make sure he gets better and i dislike when people take advantage of dogs just because they want to.
katherine ventura 2a
These dogs are important to the war, and if a human can go to a war so can a dog. I love animals, but I think that this is not cruelty because it's not cruelty towards humans. Without these canines it may take more time to find things because humans don't have the great senses of canines. I do think the benefits of using canines outweighs the costs because not to many people go crazy when a dog die but a human life is more important then a dogs, although this may sound cruel it's the truth. In conclusion, War is hell for all!
-2B
The U.S should not use these dogs. Dogs were not meant for war. I do think this is animal cruelty. The cost of not using them no more would be huge but the dogs didnt ask for that. They didnt say " I want to join the war bark bark". When they come back to the U.S. they could attack innocent people just because they thought they were a threat. The benefits outweigh the costs because we are protecting people in the U.S. The army should be able to handle what's ever overseas or they could just come home with the dogs. Our government is run by idiots smh.
marquis credle 1A
I think having combat dogs can be helpful at war but i dont believe in keeping a dog in the forces for more then one mission. for example there was dogs used in the bin laden findings I believe that dog should be sent home to the states and trained how to be a regular dog again and his time in the forces should be over. A dogs mind is more complex then a humans and if humans have a hard time getting over things they saw in combat i know a dog has those problems as well
I think having combat dogs can be helpful at war but i dont believe in keeping a dog in the forces for more then one mission. for example there was dogs used in the bin laden findings I believe that dog should be sent home to the states and trained how to be a regular dog again and his time in the forces should be over. A dogs mind is more complex then a humans and if humans have a hard time getting over things they saw in combat i know a dog has those problems as well
David Barr
period 2a
I think that using the dogs in the military is necessary evil because it helps the Army identity explosives. I think the costs balance out with the benefits because not being able to identify explosives using canines might cause casualties. The costs are that they can identify explosives and the costs is that the dogs will be affected after experience in battle.
Daniel Munibez 2A
The needs justify the possible outcome.Canines are need to help track and find things humans would have trouble finding.That is why they are needed.In the end I think it is a necessary evil so we can keep are solders safe.
I think that using the canines should be expelled, due to the effect that war has on these dogs. The dogs are being taken from there comfort place, to the point that they're scared to enter buildings, or be around people. I think that this should be justified as evil, because they're continued to be put through this .
Hiram Swain 1A
they should continue using these dogs because they are very important to our environment when it comes to crimes. No dogs mean no crimes solved and no support for back-up.
Charles Jckson 3B
I think the military should keep using these dogs. These dogs has been a good threat to the military. These dogs have good senses. They have better sence than humans.
Romello collier 4A
In my opinion yes, it is animal cruelty. If you've ever owned a dog you know just how much aljke humans they really are, animals in general but especially dogs. They have feelings and personalities too. I think it was a really good point that was made when the article read that they are being forced into war risking their lives, and getting metally ill and stressed and they have no way of making comprehensive verbal contact with us and we really just dont knowhow to
treat it. So inreality we could be making things worse. I dont really know what could be done differently be this wouldnt if even be an issue if we werent in afganistan.
I Honestly Believe That they should continue to use dogs in war because that could benefit us and helps us out by finding people and or things. It is definitely not animal cruelty because some dogs are actually built to protect people and or save people. If the dogs are doing a good job in helping us to a victory I say keep the dogs......I never would have that they send dogs to war:)
Taylor Bynum 1A
I love dogs, so i think that it is animal cruelty. They are putting dogs lives in danger. Some of the dogs that are used, are helpful to sniff out bombs, but some of the dogs dont always find something. The US has guns & other weapons that they can use instead of dogs. It may cost more because they have to find or buy something else to help them. The benefits would be that no more dogs will have PTSD.
Aneya Dixon 3B
Me personally I think it's animal cruelty. Dogs are supposed to be there to make people happy and make their lives more fun. Dogs are not supposed to be fighting in combat. Then again we need the dogs to fight in combat because, they have better instincts then humans. I agree with Aneya, the U.S. should just use more weapons instead of dogs. But dogs senses are heightened more then humans. So all in all, it's good and bad. Deyonna Butts(3B)
I don't think it is animal cruelty. The U.s don't try to hurt the dogs it just so happen that they come back
with PTSD.Certain dogs get trained to follow through orders for the soldiers with out them they probably wouldn't have as much luck with finding bombs. I am a dog lover i have a dog and i think they can be more then pets.
I think then U.S Should continue using these dogs. These dogs are needed to track so many things. Just imagine that a bomb is needed to be found and only a canine can help. That is a life and death situation and one of the many reasons these canines are needed. I understand the effects that war can have on these dogs but I believe that we all have to sufffer to make life better. So I think that the benefits outweigh the costs.
In my personal opionion i believe the U.s Should keep using these dogs. The dogs are advantage to us during the war. Also dogs are smarter then some people and can use their senses to let us know whats going on the are side. Lastly i don't think its animal cruelty because at the end of the day they are helping our country out
I dont think its animal cruelty. These dogs are used by the U.S. to help with drugs and bombs, they dont intentionally try to hurt them. Plus these dogs have stronger nose that can easily smell danger.
Terrence Moore 1B
I think its somtimes necercairy to use animals on the battle because it could keep the soliders safe from unecercaiy harm. And they could boost the moral of the soldiers. So I thinks its good to have them around.
-Dorian Womble 1A
Post a Comment