Aug22
Court Martial for Army Pig Shooters?
Posted at 05:14 PM | Permalink
| 
Comments (59)
 |
I guess we can sleep well knowing that if a soldier loses his tail during a raid, some well-trained fellow soldiers, thanks to this training, may be able to reattach the necessary posterior appendage.
Given the U.S. Army's apparent outright disregard for their own regulations and the treatment of these animals, PETA is now asking commanding officers at bases in Hawaii and Texas—where a more recent training exercise included breaking and amputating the legs of nearly 1,000 goats with tree trimmers—for a court martial over the shooting, mutilating, and killing of animals during these old-fashioned training exercises.
According to the Army's own regulations, the Army is required to use alternatives to animals in training exercises when scientifically valid and comparable alternatives exist. And they do! The animal exercise should have been replaced with validated, state-of-the-art simulators, such as the Department of Defense's own Combat Trauma Patient Simulator, which more realistically simulates battlefield conditions and, consequently, is considered superior to outdated animal methods. Other viable alternatives include Dr. Emad Aboud's "living" cadaver perfusion model, Simulab Corporation's TraumaMan system, and establishing military level one trauma centers in nearby communities in order to have trainees work with the community to take care of their city's population.
Kathy Guillermo, director of PETA's Laboratory Investigations Department, says, "The Army has regulations in place specifically to prevent this kind of cruelty to animals, but the oversight committee apparently chose to ignore them. Our soldiers deserve to be trained using the most advanced technology available—that means using human simulators."
The U.S. Army does not train soldiers to race into battle zones to retrieve injured pigs, goats, or dogs. That would be great, but let's face it: It's not the government's main agenda. Time, money, and resources could be far better spent.
You can take action on this issue here.
Posted by Jennifer Cierlitsky
TAGGED:
pigs army goats trauma training
Comments
I am an army wife stationed here in Hawaii. I am shocked and embarrassed to be here right now with such horrible exercises going on. I have seen the wild pigs here on the island , and they are absolutely adorable! I hope that something will be done, to change these practices. These animals deserve to be here just as much as anyone else.
Posted by: Meredith | August 22, 2008 09:43 PM
KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK ! THIS IS SO SCAREY TO HEAR THAT THIS WAS GOING ON. I'M SURE ALOT OF THE SOLDIERS WERE SICKEN TO BE FORCED INTO SHOOTING THOSE POOR LITTLE HELPLESS PIGS. AND THEM MADE TO TREAT THEM WITH MEDICAL CARE WHEN THEY ARE NOT EVEN ANIMAL VETS. WHAT AN AWFUL AND TRAMATIC THING FOR BOTH THE SOLDIERS THAT DIDN'T WANT TO DO THIS CRUEL ACT AND FOR THOSE LITTLE PIGS.
Posted by: SASHA | August 22, 2008 10:33 PM
Reading this makes me so depressed and despairing of humanity.
The first weekend in August I visited Farm Sanctuary and spent happy moments with pigs, goats, sheep, cows, chickens et al. They were so friendly and sweet. They are also so cute to look at in such happy surroundings ( such beautiful faces!). I wish all of them could live this way----in peaceful joy.
Posted by: Ana | August 23, 2008 07:54 PM
This is wrong! I oriniganlly protested and wrote to the army a couple months ago. What are the next steps that we can do to help? I
Posted by: Erika | August 24, 2008 09:12 AM
This is so bad. I'm Anti-War so this makes me hate these people even more. I know I wont give money to the Salvation Army this year. Lets forget about freedom and care about these animals!
Posted by: Holly | August 24, 2008 06:43 PM
Well, I guess the shooting of animals in Hawaii backs up the throwing of puppies off a cliff !!! We sertainly have a lot to be proud of in these well trained killers. Too bad the training is to kill defenseless animals !!!
Posted by: Alan | August 24, 2008 08:51 PM
The army doesn't understand that when they do that, not only are they killing or injuring an animal, but the soldier doesn't improve at all by doing so. It's complete and utter nonsense.
Nothing good can come of this...
Posted by: Vegeta | August 25, 2008 12:58 AM
Perhaps the noble thing for PETA supporters to do is volunteer to substitute for the poor helpless animals in these trauma treatment exercises. The Army gets more realistic training and animal lovers get a warm fuzzy for saving animal lives.
It's a win-win for everyone!!
Posted by: Peter | August 25, 2008 09:47 AM
Jeez, Peter, that's a tad harsh don't you think? At Peta, we care about animals because they feel pain and fear, and we, as human animals, should be caring for their welfare, not abusing them. Why is that so difficult to understand? Would you care if they shot dogs? If so, then why would you think it is okay to shoot any animal at all? Rather than negativity and sarcasm, why not educate yourself about the animal protection movement?
Posted by: Coleen Tew | August 25, 2008 11:07 AM
that is ridiculous they dont need pigs to practice with rifles my husband is a marine and they dont need to use animals they can use dummies it isnt that hard to just leave the pigs alone. what did they ever do to the army....plus there are other programs to trains your men for trauma victims its called duh actors or volunteers (non of these people get shot at or injured at all) and they pretend to be hurt... so there is no reason to use animals its cruel and wrong
Posted by: kim allen | August 25, 2008 12:06 PM
Coleen, you are quick to point out the sarcasm of a response, but how about the ethical integrity to point out the sarcasm of the article. Yes members of the military don't run into combat to save a pig, but they do help save humans. "The U.S. Army does not train soldiers to race into battle zones to retrieve injured pigs, goats, or dogs. That would be great, but let's face it: It's not the government's main agenda. Time, money, and resources could be far better spent." Using the logic of the article writer, we should use humans for training because thats who the members of the military will treat with this training. It is a way to train military members to save human lives, but I guess that is not what is important to some people. Oh and as a soldier, I have nothing against pigs, but if it will help someone keep me alive if I am shot, then I appreicate the sacrifice of the pig.
Posted by: Bill in VA | August 25, 2008 12:36 PM
Well Bill in VA--you seem not to realize (or actually, care) that the pig did not make the sacrifice willingly. I know that I would not willingly die for you and I can't imagine any other human that would, absent possibly a relative. Why would you expect that a pig should?
However--if you do want to put forth the suggestion that the army use humans (maybe those on Death Row, who are going to die anyway) I'll back you 100%. Let me know.
Posted by: Antigone1000 | August 25, 2008 03:39 PM
The fact that the army even stooped low enough to use defenseless pigs to shoot and practice first aid on is mind numbing. Why would you use animals to train army personnel to apply first aid to humans? The thought process there is clearly absent. Like the article says the military has high tech simulators put in place to properly train their personnel, use it.
Posted by: xXxmilitaryfreezone | August 25, 2008 10:01 PM
Bill in VA - the logic of the article writer was to suggest the army use their own alternatives, ie. Combat Trauma Patient Stimulator- if you'd cared to actually follow the writer's logic.
One of our valued posters, Derek MD, a qualified surgeon, has used and validated the effectiveness of alternative methods over using injured animals.
Posted by: lynda downie | August 25, 2008 11:01 PM
Antigone
You would not give your life for Bill, but where you sit in your cosy appartment you expect him and people like him to give theirs for you.
Posted by: jay | August 26, 2008 12:21 AM
Bill,
I just don't think shooting a live animal is ethical, and I didn't appreciate Peter's suggestion that we use Peta volunteers. I thought that was just bad taste.
What have soldiers used for all these years to make their shooting skills sharp?
I guess I just don't understand why people who are not advocates of animal liberation find it neccessary to be nasty and vindictive. We aren't harming anybody. We just don't want any animals harmed.
Posted by: Coleen Tew | August 26, 2008 10:55 AM
Jay: If they so CHOOSE. I respect our troops, but don't forget that they CHOSE to sign up. I did not make that choice and the pigs being killed did not make the choice to die either.
Posted by: Antigone1000 | August 26, 2008 12:21 PM
Sorry, but I am not a qualified Surgeon, but I am a Family Physician that works several small town ER's. That said, I have had Advanced Trauma Life Support training, and had the experience of going to the one site in Iowa that uses a "Trauma Man" model instead of pigs, and felt no remorse (as did some of my fellow residents at the time who chose the convenience of a close location that used pigs).
I remember in disucssions with the course instructors (in Sioux City, IA for those professionals that live in the "area"), that the Trauma Man was very expensive to produce and maintain, given the synthetic skin, etc. The cost was the ONLY reason provided as to why all sites did not use Trauma Man, although the Sioux City site was hoping their work with this model would help promote its use elsewhere.
I am sure the cost issue is also the ONLY real reason that pigs are utilized by our strangely frugal (when convenient) military.
Posted by: Derek, MD | August 26, 2008 04:31 PM
Antigone, though you would not give up your life for anybody, except yourself (if that was possible). Bill in VA would put his life on the line for you at the drop of a hat.
Thanks for everything you have done for me Bill! We are all in debted to you.
Posted by: Kurt K | August 26, 2008 04:56 PM
There is absolutely no reason the military can't afford non-animal surgical models. The Washington Post estimates the war in Iraq will cost over 3 trillion dollars, and it's seriously weakening the US economy.
My feeling is that the Iraq war has not made the States one bit safer from terrorist attacks—most likely the opposite.
Posted by: Mike Quinoa | August 26, 2008 07:05 PM
Kurt K: Bill has done nothing for me, in particular. He has CHOSEN a career (permanent or temporary) in the military for which he is compensated. If you are trying to make me feel guilty, you have failed. I still side with the pigs.
Oh--and btw--when did you last offer your life for the good of all mankind??
Posted by: Antigone1000 | August 26, 2008 07:10 PM
Antigone,
The only reason you are so glib about Bill not having done anything for you is because you have never been in a war. You have no apreciation for your freedom which is being gaurded by these people. Had you lived in London in the WW2 I believe you would sing a different tune.
Posted by: jay | August 27, 2008 11:05 AM
Antigone
When I entered Officer Candidate School for the Marine Corp! However, I blew out my knee in the 9th week of training, one week shy of completion.
Because of my injury to my knee I was physically unable to serve in the Marines, however I was on my way to becoming a Marine and I was ready.
Oh--and btw--Bill has done more for you than you will ever know. The pigs, not so much.
Mike Q,
We will all judge this war differently in 5 years. You can count on that.
That is if we finish the war and not leave too early like the Dems want to do!
Posted by: Kurt K | August 27, 2008 12:39 PM
Jay: I would never sing any tune that advocates cruelty to animals. If you have posted on here for any length of time, you should surely have realized that.
Kurt K: Again--you and Bill both chose to enlist. As I said before, I respect our troops, but you guys need to quit expecting to be patted on the back for a career you chose and were compensated for. If anyone finds themselves in a war in these days of no-draft, they have no one to blame but themselves.
Posted by: Antigone1000 | August 27, 2008 06:42 PM
I am absolutely ashamed to be a part of the same breed of animals that see no shame in the torture of other living beings for their own selfish requirements. That same animal who self proclaims to be the most intelligent on this earth and yet can't fathom the wrong doing in the practice of unnecessary torture. I wonder how long it will be before we as human beings learn to remove our heads from up their own backsides and realise that what we should not play God with the lives of other beings, using and abusing for our own insatiable needs.
When other species of animals become interested in oil then let them make their own war..
Posted by: Lynne | August 27, 2008 07:31 PM
Jay and Kurt K
I don't know how much more explicit Antigone could be- the key word here is CHOICE- which you both CHOOSE to ignore. Bill has chosen to serve in the army, the pigs have not.
But I doubt that any soldier would willingly choose to be deliberately critically injured to learn surgical skills that may or may not save his life. That is what is expected of the pigs.
Posted by: lynda downie | August 27, 2008 10:55 PM
Lynda,
My original point was that Antigone is not prepared to sacrifice her life for others but is quite willing to accept the sacrifice from someone else.
I am not an American. I am not in the military. I am not pro-war and I think that Bush got it wrong in Iraq. That having been said the Defense Force is vital part of the security of any state. Despite the fact that people CHOOSE that career I they nonetheless put their LIVES on the line for our safety and security.
Antigone seems to take this for granted - a compensated career. If that is what it has come to I think a draft is a great idea - it will give is all a healthy respect for what sacrifice is.
You cannot demand sacrifice, especially sacrifice of one's live, and not be prepared to sacrifice something of yourself - something as little as respect.
Posted by: jay | August 28, 2008 11:03 AM
Jay: Did you actually read what you wrote???
"My original point was that Antigone is not prepared to sacrifice her life for others but is quite willing to accept the sacrifice from someone else."
That is EXACTLY your attitude toward animals!!! You will not give your life, but expect them to give theirs--and for an entirely different species, no less!! What a hypocrite you have just shown yourself to be. You have also just shown how stupid your argument really is. What a great post!
Posted by: Antigone1000 | August 28, 2008 05:40 PM
Jay,
Firefighters and police also choose to put their lives on the line, but it is still their choice. Not everyone is willing or able to make that choice, and it's a huge assumption that pigs would want to lay down their lives for the "cause."
My opinion is still that the US can be penetrated by terrorists, perhaps through Canada, which has extremely lax border controls. The Iraq war probably serves to agitate terrorist factions, rather than subdue them. I'm sure U.S. security is much tighter post-September 11, but you can't put the whole country in a bubble.
Posted by: Mike Quinoa | August 28, 2008 08:47 PM
My father was an Army medic during Vietnam, and like many of us, he was absolutely appalled to hear about this Army "training." During his medic training all those years ago, he was never made to shoot or "treat" pigs, and still managed to help save lives. Why, this many years later, is the Army now so ill-equipped that they have to resort to this crude, ignorant method of shooting pigs? Clearly we've progressed enough, and especially during the past several decades?
Posted by: Alicia | August 29, 2008 12:14 AM
That's fair, Jay. But Antigone has stated a few times that she does respect the troops.
Posted by: lynda downie | August 29, 2008 01:57 AM
I think we are all getting away from the point a little bit. That being said, pigs have feelings too. All animals do big and small. Why should they be sacraficed when there are other ways of acheiving the same results. These pigs are feeling the same type of pain that we do, and I dont think we would enjoy being shot with a rifle either, just let them be please.
Posted by: denise | August 29, 2008 07:41 AM
If killing a few pigs to save lives in Iraq and Afganastan is what it takes, then I am all for it.
The military uses this becuase they have deemed it to be very useful. They are not doing this to get their rocks off, they are doing it to help train medics and corpmen.
The army strives to be the best and keep casualties down. If there was a more effective way to train they would use it.
Posted by: Kurt K | August 29, 2008 01:04 PM
Antigone
If I considered animals and humans to have the same rights then I would be a hypocrite. I however dont. I love animals and I think we should be responsible stewards but I think humans are more important than animals.
Just to be clear I agree that using animals as target practice is unethical.
Posted by: jay | August 29, 2008 01:49 PM
I normally do not do posts but I really feel I must reply to the arguments that have been made on the shooting of pigs to get army people training on how to help wounded solders. Has anyone thought of doing time in an ER in one of the major cities? There are are many shooting victims(gang members, etc.)there that they can practice on and get all the experience they need. Why hasn't the Army thought of this? Shooting pigs? How barbaric is that. These pigs are not in the military and did not join up voluntarily.The remark about Peta volnteers exchanging places with the pigs was just plain cruel,rude and shows the mentality this person has which is not much, if any.All the army is doing by making soldiers shoot defenseless pigs is making them not respect life. If they can shoot innocent animals they can kill humans with no conscience at all. They are turning them into killing machines who have no respect for the lives of other species other than humans. No compassion at all. I would never want nor expect someone like that to give his life for me nor would I give my life for him either. Just my own opinion.
Posted by: Shannon Martel | August 29, 2008 02:09 PM
When I log in with my email address on the DoD web site, they state there is no record of my email.
After I submit my comments (by the way, I believe killing animals in military training or any other way is horrible), the DoD web site asks for confirmation of my email address. When I type it in, their web site says I am already registered. Does anyone else have this problem?
And Peter (Aug 25 '08), your comments aren't appropriate for this web site.
Posted by: M Le | August 29, 2008 09:58 PM
Kurt K: A more effective method would be to use YOU as a target since you have the same biological makeup as an enemy soldier and would present them with a more realistic injury to treat. So--would you volunteer?? Let me guess--no. But you cowardly volunteer another......My own philosophy is not to expect another to do that which I would not do myself, but your philosophy seems to be "better that woman, child, animal suffer than me.. " How courageous.
Posted by: Antigone1000 | August 30, 2008 10:16 AM
Jay: That's right--YOU think humans are more important than animals. I don't and neither do the animals. So--what's your point?
Posted by: Antigone1000 | August 30, 2008 10:23 AM
THIS IS DISGUSTING AND THE PERSON WHO CAME UP WITH THIS SHOULD BE SHOT HIM/HER SELF, SEE HOW THEY LIKE IT AND HAVE NO SAY OR NO WAY OF HELPING THEM SELVES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
PIGS HAVE NO VOICE,NO WAY TO DEFEND THERE SELVES,NO WAY OUT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
WE THE PEOPLE ARE THERE VOICES AND HELP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I AM LIVID!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
IT MAKES ME WONDER WHAT ELSE IS GOING ON?!?!?!?!?!?!??!?!?!??!
Posted by: Tucker | August 30, 2008 10:26 AM
First off, I am in the Army and have been for 8 years. I love my job and I am very proud of what we do. I am also a member of PETA and proud of this organization as well. I am currently serving in Iraq and it saddens me to hear about the Army training taking place. I know first hand how important it is to have good medical training but as the article mentions, we have great life like medical training simulators we use. When my unit medics aren't out on missions they are working in the local ER here to keep their skills sharp.
Secondly, the Army is a very large organization. Rolling the Army up into a heartless and cruel organization is just about as bad of a stereotype as you can come up with. I personally would appreciate it if those of you who are pointing your finger at the Army would point it at those responsible for the training. And as for the "Anti-War" people.... I assure you that nobody hates war more than most of us Soldiers. We do this so you wont have to on your front yard. We may not agree with every situation our leaders place us in but we do our jobs with pride. I would love to have world peace as much as anyone else but until then, I will keep this job.
Thank you PETA for brining this topic to light. I hate to see this type of thing occur when I know from experience there is other ways to accomplish the same training.
Posted by: John Wilmoth | August 31, 2008 08:38 AM
Antigone
How old are you? You say things that I would expect to hear from a 12 year old or an old hippy liberal.
When you can't make a point you just personally attack whoever you are arguing with.
Since when did I ever say I wanted to kill women and children? I said if killing a pig to save the lives of soldiers, (women are soldiers too) then I am all for it.
Having said that, if the Army was shooting pigs for target practice, then I have a problem with it. There are other targets that move.
You need to look at things practically and not so idealogically. If you think only that way, you are going to end up hurting yourself or others someday.
During WWII the soldiers training for the D-Day invasion crawled through the guts and blood of slaughtered pigs and cattle so they were more accustomed to the sight of such carnage.
War is hell!
Posted by: Kurt K | September 2, 2008 12:26 PM
Kurt K
You chastise Antigone for putting words in your mouth but how is that any different than you writing that she wouldn't give up her life for anybody. You don't know that.
So as far as assumptions go, I'd say you're pretty much even.
BTW Antigone has made some very good points..still waiting for you to get them.
Posted by: lynda downie | September 4, 2008 01:14 AM
Jay,
Why do you think humans are more important than animals?
Care to elaborate?
Posted by: lynda downie | September 4, 2008 01:35 AM
Lynda,
I think you can defend the position that humans are more important than animals from a variety of different philosophical positions.
My personal belief is that a sovereign God created all things and that he created man to rule over the earth in a responsible fashion, something at which man has failed since the beginning. I believe that man has essential difference from animals which set him/her apart from animals. AR groups frequently try to "humanize" animals' intellect, habits and emotions but I think there is so much that seperates us that the similarities pale in comparison. I also think that man is the only animal that doesnt "fit" his own skin; which is why I believe the world is in such undeniable turmoil.
From an atheist perspective I still think the only rational perspective - if rationality exists outside of God - is that man is more "important" than animal. If we consider ourselves to be purely evolutionary beings then our purpose is still to ensure the survival of our species first and foremost, therefore considering ourselves more important - admittedly only to ourselves, but still - in the same way that animals throughout the animal kingdom consider themselves more important than others; ask the wildebeest. We may still need to "care" for other species but that has more to do with our own survival than with altruism.
Posted by: jay | September 4, 2008 01:23 PM
Thanks for your response Jay. Is that 'essential' difference based on your belief that humans are made in God's image while animals are not? Or some other essence?
It could also be argued (and has been) quite convincingly that from a biological perspective, the earthworm or the soil is the most important because human life depends on them, but they don't depend on us for life. Humans have also been referred to as the most invasive species, among other not so complimentary descriptions.
As an atheisist and evolutionist, I accept the position that all animals (non-human and human) are related and therefore share many common characteristics - that we are not set apart but are very much a part of all nature.
Posted by: lynda downie | September 5, 2008 02:11 AM
Oops, that'd be 'atheist'. Gotta watch my spelling again.
Posted by: lynda downie | September 6, 2008 02:12 AM
Kurt K: War IS hell, including war on defenseless animals for no reason.
My comment about you is based on the fact that you come across as a complete coward. You have no qualms about volunteering the lives of the most innocent and defenseless among us in situations where you would never volunteer your own. I can't see that you would draw the line at women or children if it came down to you or them.
Posted by: Antigone1000 | September 8, 2008 09:39 AM
Jay: It's all in perception. Man thinks he is the most evolved and, if he believes in God, thinks he is created in God's image. Animals no doubt think that man is the lowest creature on earth and, if they believe in God, created in Satan's image.
A nation that mistreats the weak is not highly evolved. We recognize this in foreign regimes that routinely mistreat humans. We are no better, or more evolved, than those regimes because we mistreat animals. The person who has the power to abuse and chooses not to do so is always greater than the person who has the power to abuse and chooses to use it.
Posted by: Antigone1000 | September 8, 2008 09:43 AM
Lynda,
The most obvious differences, as far as I am concerned, between man and animal is intellect and creativity. I think the more subtle and more important difference is how uncomfortable man is in his own skin; man's perpetual search and uniform discontentment.
Posted by: jay | September 8, 2008 06:48 PM
I appreciate your very honest response, Jay.
Granted humans may have more sophisticated intellect and creativity but I don't think these characteristics are uniquely human. Rather, they are shared in varying degrees by all species.
And really, I doubt you'd judge importance on the basis of intellect and creativity.(ie. is a theoretical physicist more important than a devoted mother who barely passed her GED?)
In response to your point that humans are perpetually searching and discontented, can we be certain that we are alone in this? Sometimes assumptions are made about animals simply because they don't have the vocal apparatus to tell us what they're thinking.
Any further thoughts? rebuttals?
Posted by: lynda downie | September 9, 2008 02:23 AM
Lynda,
I absolutely agree that intellect and creativity are not grounds for considering one person more important than another and that all humans are created equally. I however observe in nature a clear trend by which one species "considers" itself superior to another. The way we consider ourselves - or maybe our immune system considers itself - superior to the cold virus, the loss of animal life for our nutrition be it vegan or non vegan are examples of a struggle between species that certainly dont consider equality in their survival strategy. But I guess it is a matter of faith. As an atheist there is probably not a lot of ground for considering yourself above another species.
I furthermore agree that since we have limited insight into what animals think we should be carefull what we infer. But again one sees man go to some quite extraordinary lenghts to do some pretty silly things - climbing Everest, going to the moon, drug abuse, even experimenting with different types of food - that I dont see in animals. Perhaps they just dont have the faculties to try. What I can say from experience is that I have observed in man a discontentment and I think at the heart of that discontentment lies the riddle to the universe.
Posted by: jay | September 9, 2008 12:12 PM
Very excellent points, Jay. I think it's true that humans do experiment more than is apparent in animals. But one simple explanation could be that those we've domesticated, in particular, are denied the opportunities to explore new things. They're caged, fenced, trained to obey, etc. I've seen many bored animals, seemingly resigned to the limited freedom we allow them.
That's a very profound thought to see the connection between our discontent and the answer to the riddle of the universe. Very thought provoking.
I guess where we differ is that I've seen the unmistakable look of discontentment, too, in the eyes of animals, even in my companions who are loved, well fed, and given substantial freedom.
Posted by: lynda downie | September 10, 2008 01:36 AM
Thanks for the thoughts Lynda.
Jay
Posted by: jay | September 10, 2008 11:50 AM
And you. Thanks, Jay.
Lynda
Posted by: lynda downie | September 11, 2008 01:50 AM
Jay and Lynda, I have been reading your conversation and all I can say is well done. You both where very respectful and not condescending to each other. Its that kind of dialogue we need more of to understand each other.
Well done!
Posted by: Kurt K | September 12, 2008 10:12 AM
I am an Italian PETA member.
First, I have to thank the U.S.A., and expecially Your Soldiers, for bringing to us the Light of Freedom for such a long time, for saving us from Nazism, Communism and other dangers, like islamic fondamentalism now. I will always praise and never forget all the U. S. Soldiers who gave their life to defend the Freedom of the Western World.
But I am sure that a Nation technologically advanced like the USA has better simulators of the human body than poor animals that should be let live peacefully and painlessly. Plus, i am an healthcare professional and i have read several things about terminal ballistic and stopping power, so i believe that pigs are a very bad simulator of the human body.
Finally, i am really disgusted by what a guy called Peter wrote on 25th August 2008; Peter, why don' t you consider letting us PETA members live and do our work in defence of animals peacefully, and managing instead of getting shot yourself, possibly with a frangible bullet in, don' t know, .45 ACP or .44 Magnum? Then there will be not much left to save, but the study of a carcass hit by such bullets could be useful anyway. And the USA would be even greater without people who target honest citizen who give their time and money for what they believe in.
Long Live America!
Posted by: dott. Antonio Modonutti | September 19, 2008 03:52 PM
Our "civilisations" will be wiped out by - Mother Earth .This is unexusable.Whatever suffering we inflict on any living being will come back to us.Well and good......
Posted by: Roswitha Reinders | September 19, 2008 07:28 PM
PRESIDENT HUSSEIN IS FAMOUS FOR TRAINING TERRORISTS TO KILL AND TORTURE USING LIVE ANIMALS.....WAKE UP AMERICA. BAGDAD HAS THE WORST ANIMAL WELFARE RECORD IN HISTORY.
Posted by: MAMoore | January 26, 2009 01:50 PM
stopping arterial bleeding on a goat is the same as a person. Simulabs do not induce stress, the number one reason for failures on the battle field. If soldiers feel sick working on poor helpless bleeding out pigs then they will never be able to work on their best friend while he's bleeding out and they need to work on more dying pigs until they dont freak out anymore. US military medics need this training to stay calm under combat stress.
Posted by: nicholas fenton | February 14, 2009 09:19 PM