Should Service Dogs be Allowed to be Buried in Military Cemeteries?

[The Straight Story]

Should Service Dogs be Allowed to be Buried in Military Cemeteries?

The Obama administration has been asked to change the rules regarding military cemeteries to allow military service dogs to be buried among soldiers.

A petition was filed with the White House’s “We the People” website requesting the rule changing, while citing the story of Mina, a dog who served nine tours in Afghanistan. Mina was promoted to sergeant and received an honorable discharge from the military, before dying at the age of 13 back in the United States.

The dog’s owner, June Etlinger, contacted the government to see if Mina could be buried at a local veterans’ cemetery, but was laughed at and told that canine burials were not permitted.

“They have ranks. They have serial numbers tattooed in their ears,” Etlinger’s husband, Robin, told the Tri-County Times. “They’re just like soldiers and they have a right to be honored as a soldier.”

http://www.allgov.com/news/unusual-news/should-service-dogs-be-allowed-to-be-buried-in-military-cemeteries-130205?news=846967

[xchrom]

1. yes.it's our last duty to them. nt

[el_bryanto]

2. Yes! They deserve the same honor as Human Soldiers.

That's my opinion anyway.

Bryant

[sadalien]

3. Why are people cool with dogs being exploited like this?

In the military, many dog fans think it is cute for dogs to be in the military. Wonder how many of those dogs have been senselessly blown up because they were sent into a minefield.

[el_bryanto]

6. What?

Could you provide some evidence for your claim dogs are serving in the military because dog fans think it is cute?

Bryant

[sadalien]

8. Not saying that people requested them

only that people are cool with it because they think it's neato.

[intheflow]

14. I don't think the majority of people think dogs in the military is "neato."

I'm sure most people see military dogs as necessary for a variety of reasons, including but not limited to bomb detection and the mental well-being of human soldiers who have dogs in their units. These dogs save human soldiers lives in many ways, and as such, many of us are grateful for their inclusion in the ranks as they keep the nation's sons and daughters safer and healthier in dangerous situations.

[sadalien]

20. You for or against the military using dophins?

For bomb detection?

[intheflow]

21. False equivalency.

A) I am not keen on any living thing having anything to do with bombs.

B) Humans have a different relationship with dogs than they do dolphins. I said in my post that dogs help the military in myriad ways, including improving the mental health of soldiers. The same cannot be said of dolphins. As such, your comparison of using the two mammals in warfare is bogus.

C) You're still not making your case for dogs being in the military simply because people think they're neato.

[sadalien]

23. No it isn't

They are both lesser animals that humans exploit.

[intheflow]

25. That you think they are lesser than humans

says a lot about your intellectual and/or spiritual development.

[sadalien]

29. That's rather presumptuous and intolerant.

Humanity pretty much as a whole views them as such. I'm an atheist, so I'm not spiritual at all. Spirituality is not rational.

[intheflow]

36. You must have missed the "and/or" part.

"Intellectual and/or spiritual." This response - along with your inability or unwillingness to defend your earlier neato statement - only supports my earlier supposition regarding your development. Humanity as a whole does not believe that, and it's presumptuous of you to say so. On the intellectual front, most scientists/scientifically literate people understand that humans are not the pinnacle of evolution. You are also ignoring the millions of Buddhists, Hindus, Pagans, liberal Christians and other people of faith who understand the inherent worth of animals.

[sadalien]

42. You are all over the map

[intheflow]

44. And you still haven't made a cogent argument for any of your statements.

Good luck on DU.

[sadalien]

45. don't really know you

or care to

[Deep13]

26. Because we exploit humans like that. nt

[MadrasT]

4. Damn straight. n/t

[irisblue]

5. yes, why is this an issue?

Those dogs served their handlers, they served us. They are entitled to be a military cemetery, they earned it

[obamanut2012]

16. And, they didn't volunteer -- they had no choice

[Deep13]

27. space limitations. nt

[irisblue]

31. my 75# goldens ashes' fit in a 6 by 6 inch bag.

That is a small size, and if the handler wants to be rejoined/reunited with his/her dog, we don't have the moral standing to tell them no.

[Deep13]

33. That might be a good compromise, then. nt

[RC]

34. Space Limitations?

Maybe we should not be in so many wars, declared and otherwise then, ya think?

That said, I think military service dogs should be buried in military cemeteries. With their own separate grave nest to their handlers, if need be.

[Deep13]

38. Of course we should not be in so many wars.

Duh!

I meant places like Arlington and Gettysburg are running out of room. The cremation idea might be a good compromise.

[JustAnotherGen]

7. My gut response?

No. My dad is buried in military section of a cemetary with a slot saved for my mom due to cancers caused by agents orange, pink, white, and blue. He went blind at one point due to ingesting the 'fertilizer' they used in Korea when he had to walk by himself to get help for the very young drafted in Marines that were trapped on high ground after a monsoon. His hearing was devastated from being a Captain in a Tank Battalion. He had several wounds he incurred as Green Beret. And as a green beret - the very first class - I got to hear my dad ramble about his 'mind shattering' the last day he was alive (tip of the hat to the mind control and brain washing he went through).

I think it's an honorable and KIND idea - but for me personally? It would be insulting.

Not discounting the dogs - but it's just not the same. And honestly? Our Vietnam Era veterans are running out of time.

President Obama needs to be focused on getting them the lung biopsies these folks DESPERATELY need in order to not go from pnuemonia to stage 4 lung, pancreatic, liver, intestinal cancer in a matter of a few months. He needs to make sure our younger Vets from that Era that are technically disabled get the medical services and preventative care they need from the VA.

Our Gulf War veterans are now around the 40 year mark - when stuff from our youth catches up to us.

And we have men and women coming back from Afghanistan and Iraq whose hearts and minds are broken from what they've endured (PTSD).

Certainly a noble idea - but this is one case where I have to say - People First.

[Sheldon Cooper]

10. I don't think anyone is saying that is has to be either/or.

I would guess there's room for your dad AND the dogs as well, particularly if they (the dogs) are cremated. My kids' father is eligible for burial at Arlington when the time comes, and although he didn't serve with dogs, he'd be proud to have a fellow combat 'vet' buried in the same cemetary.

[JustAnotherGen]

43. It's not even the either/or

It's the petitioning the President when we have three generations of Vets that can't get basic services. The younger ones are coming out and can't get jobs and can't get mental health. Great - folks want to do this.


Just do it - but put them faaaaaaaaaaaaaar away from the humans.

Some day - your kids will get this. I think my mom would be devastated (dad died August of 2011) to go to that section that seems to be all Vietnam Vets widows right now and see her husband reduced to being a dog.

After allllll of these years of the Fed Gov treating the Vietnam Vets like shit on Americas shoes, deliberately poisoning them, and spitting on them as they die - it's one more piece of shit dropped on every single one of those souls.


Have it - but doncha dare bury that damn dog next to my daddy. He was treated like a nothing dog by his country as it was - don't add insult to injury.

[Historic NY]

9. Why not, especially if the handler can be buried buried there....

they don't take up a great amount of space.

[Myrina]

11. Yes ...

... and dogs who serve as police K-9's should be treated as officers by their localities too.

We have had 3 K9 officers die in the line of duty here in Central IN over the past year and to my knowledge, only 1 of them got the official funeral he was due.

[Lugnut]

12. Absolutely.

When they serve they are part of the military.

[HERVEPA]

13. Shouldn't be an issue at all

Animals should never be used by humans for this type of purpose. Period.

[obamanut2012]

15. Yes

[Demo_Chris]

17. No. Not because I don't love dogs

At some point you have to draw the line. Wherever that line is, someone will come up with perfectly reasonable sounding exceptions, but a line is probably necessary. Why not dogs?

First: A military cemetary is not for the fallen soldier, it is for that soldier's family and friends. It is to show them that we honor the sacrifice of their family member. Or, cynically, to show potential new recruits how awesome it is to die for one's country. In any case, John the fallen soldier does not care whether Fido is burried next to him. John's dead, Fido as well, and it's a safe bet none of Fido's family and friends will know of or appreciate the gesture.

Second: Dogs are not people. They are my best friends and always have been, but they are not people. When we bury a dog in a military cememtary we are elevating and honoring a dead animal while simultaniously sending a message that we view the people buried there as being no better than that animal. Those people, being dead, don't care, but their family and friends certainly might. Seriously, you want to bury some little girl's daddy next to a dog?

Finally, why stop there? The military has horses and cavalry. We are using horses in Afghanistan today. Do we need to haul them home and bury them as well? B-But Cavalry trooper John loved that horse! It served honorably and carried him through many battles. It was a hero. Yeah.

So there you go. Military cemetaries are for people. Not hampsters, horses, carrier pidgeons, or dogs. And no it doesn't suck. What sucks is that we need these places at all.

[okaawhatever]

18. I think they should. They serve in the military and that is what's relevant. I understand the horses

argument but horses haven't been buried in the way dogs have over the years. The dogs are saving the lives of soldiers and serve a function that is in keeping with military tradition. They are trained, they deploy, they probably even have a m.o.s. The seal team took a dog with them when they went into Aslamabad, clearly their service is worthy.

[okaawhatever]

19. I want 2 add that I think there should be a special section for service animals unless their handler

wants to be buried with them. I know a few of the dogs have died with their handlers. I remember seeing a tribute of one with his handler on you tube. We as a nation need to recognize all the good dogs can do beside just military and pets. They have dogs who can detect cancer, aide children with epilepsy by letting them know when they are about to have a seizure, and dogs who assist the physically disabled by getting them drinks turning on/off lights and many other things.

[Autumn]

22. Of course they should. Dogs serve honorably and true.

[lumberjack_jeff]

24. No. They're dogs.

Imagine all the canaries buried in the coal mine cemeteries.

[Deep13]

28. +1 nt

[wickerwoman]

30. Disrespectful to Hindu and Muslim soldiers.

But I wouldn't have a problem with a seperate pet cemetery for military animals (and of course animals shouldn't be use this way in the first place).

[Comrade Grumpy]

32. It's a freakin' dog. Not a soldier. This shit is silly.

There's some sort of weird militaristic fetishism going on here. I see the same thing with police dogs. They're not freakin' cops, they're dogs!

[GodlessBiker]

35. We rely on their domestication, which we achieved, to trust us and then send them to do work which

may mean that they rather than their human counterparts get blown up.

I see it as a sign of respect and even contrition that we would honor them as we do our human soldiers.

[Adsos Letter]

40. This ^

[liberal_at_heart]

46. my husband's guide dog saved his life twice.

I can't even put into words how I feel about that dog. Any being willing to sacrifice its life to save another deserves honoring.

[Orrex]

37. Let the dog submit a formal request prior to death

After that, I say ok.

[Adsos Letter]

39. Yes, without doubt.

[liberal_at_heart]

41. Yes. They sacrifice their lives just like the humans do. That deserves honoring.

[kestrel91316]

47. I see no harm.