1. People should not be allowed personal time once they’ve joined the military.
2. People should not donate their own money to causes based on their personal conscience.
3. People with jobs should not have dogs.
4. Animal adoptions should ignore existing emotional bonds.
5. Rules and bureaucracy take precedence over human virtue.
6. Zoomzoom is the fascist.

First, the easy stuff: yes, the pack might dissolve, but the individual dogs don’t just flop over dead because they lose the alpha. But that’s not really the point: according to your logic, no stray dog should ever be adopted, because adoption always removes a dog from its current social structure. That’s nonsense. (And you did, in fact, openly dismiss the abuse: “She’s been abused, but abuse happens to people all over the world” is a clear attempt to belittle the impact of abuse.)

From there, your comments leave the road entirely. This statement, “they know the consequences of their choice – whether it be post-traumatic stress or suicide or whatever,” is galling to the point of incredulity. Do you really think that anyone who joins the military forfeits their right to pursue happiness? And that they simply have to resign themselves to the possibility of PTSD and/or suicide because it was somehow in the job description? And do you honestly think that someone at war needs to give up a dog in order to learn a childhood lesson about loss? You don’t think witnessing or even causing death teaches that lesson daily? Who ARE you? You show so little understanding, and so little compassion for either humans or animals, that my mind reels. You honor bureaucracy and petty rules above loyalty and compassion – and yet YOU pity ME. Baffling.

Yes, I have separated Nubs from strays, emphasis on strays. Not dogs in general. Because he isn’t one; he was tamed. “That can’t be helped” meaning the war cannot be helped but I think I’ll retract that statement because I honestly don’t have enough information to be a judge of that.

But I do see where you get your arguments from, just please respect my point of view and don’t think that I haven’t given thought to what I say.

I don’t know why you think Nubs was so different from other dogs. You think only the most deserving dogs should be rescued? Okay, then go to every shelter in the world before you rescue a dog, and find the one that is the “most in need” of rescuing. Ignore the animal at your feet, and any emotional attachment you may have with it. Let that animal suffer or die while you head out to find another. In fact, give up the dog you’ve been caring for the past five or ten years to get one from a shelter, because the shelter dog is obviously in more need.

Look, if you want to operate from a position of logic rather than one of compassion, do so. But in your rush to trample love and loyalty, don’t forget to make sure your logic holds water.

But I’m glad that Dennis found some love during his time in Iraq. I just wish he didn’t have to spend so much money on transporting Nubs to the U.S.

And please, this argument is about the moral opinions of people and not the persons themselves.

Oh sure, so you think by taking away this pack’s leader they wouldn’t be the least affected? What about the close relationships alpha dogs have with the rest of the pack, and perhaps it’s beta mate? You didn’t account for the emotional losses of the pack in your ‘utopian’ explanation. What if there were no other dogs in the pack suitable to be the next alpha and the pack died off? Sure, you say NO ONE suffered from this, but how about Nub’s pack?
Being the leader of the pack is about the same thing as being in a family that they have to be responsible for and watchful over. Thus the husband/children metaphor. I made Nubs a woman because the metaphor wouldn’t work with Dennis going off with a man, but my point is that you guys were equating the worth of a dog to a human.

As for the abused bit, I wasn’t disregarding it- I’m simply saying that it’s not exclusive to that region.

Why is it that a MAJOR in the army can be going around taming wild dogs and nursing them back to health? Aren’t they supposed to be fighting the war? Don’t give me that ‘they need a break’ crap either, they know what they signed up for and know the consequences of their choice- whether it be post-traumatic stress or suicide or whatever. He knew it was against the rules to keep a dog with him. He wasn’t supposed to be taming ‘Nubs’. Having Nubs detracts from his concentration on his work in Iraq, and just because he had the resources to preserve this pastime/whim/relationship of his with Nubs, he transported this dog all the way to the U.S.. Maybe he should’ve learned the lesson that sometimes you have to give things up, like when a little kid has to give up their dog when they move houses. Sad, but necessary- especially in war when one can’t hold on to luxuries such as pets.

On another note, it’s pretty sad to see you all resorting to overly mocking and insulting retorts to my comments to try and make me feel bad. What makes me feel bad is that your denouncements of me just make me pity you more.

Say Major Dennis is a spaceman, and Nubs is a slice of delicious space-pie baked by unicorns for Pimwat, the three-headed king of the planet Xerbion 9. Spaceman Dennis loves space-pie so much that he doesn’t care that it belongs to King Pimwat, so he eats Nub anyway. The other pieces of space-pie miss Nub so much that they go sour, and when King Pimwat gets three mouthfuls of sour space-pie, he grows so angry that he destroys Earth with a ray gun that shoots giant, flaming icicles. So what’s this mean? That’s right: it means Major Dennis destroyed Earth. Nice going.

No. 73: What happened to the dogs? Presumably, a new alpha assumed control of the pack, which happens as a matter of course when an alpha dies or otherwise leaves the pack.

No. 74: I can’t even believe I have to explain this one to you. Nubs was not a woman, did not having a caring husband, and did not have wonderful children. I understand your little story is a metaphor, but to make a metaphor pertinent, you have draw parallels to reality, which you have not. You’re trying to make the point that somebody (or something) suffered because Nubs was taken away, but that was not the case. No one suffered from it: Nubs is better off, Major Dennis is better off, the people who contributed are better off.

I think you’re getting this one wrong because you don’t understand that the previous commenters compared the dog to a child to indicate the depth of emotion that some people feel towards animals – not to demonstrate how human-like dogs are.

Your arguments and metaphors only get more ridiculous. You might want to stop now, for your own sake.

Dennis is a soldier that meets this married Iraqi woman named Nubs while on duty in Iraq. She’s lived in Iraq all her life, has a caring husband and wonderful children, and provides for her family’s wellbeing. True, the country she lives in may not be the best and she’s been abused, but abuse happens to people all over the world. Dennis makes his rounds every day and tries to catch her attention because he likes her. At first, Nubs didn’t care about Dennis and was focused only on taking care of her beloved family, but over time she grew attracted to his attentions and his supply of good food. Over time, she began to neglect the needs of her husband and children because she would spend time chasing after Dennis, knowing he would dote on her. Then one day, Dennis had to leave. Nubs decided to go after him because to her, Dennis was the way to the good life in America. She hitchhiked 70 miles to find him and as a reward Dennis brought her over to the States so he could always have her. So what’s this mean? That’s right, Dennis seduced Nubs away from her family.

He purposely tamed the alpha leader of a wild pack of dogs and eventually lured the dog 70 miles away from it’s pack. Now that pack of wild dogs is left without a leader. I’m all for Dennis fixing him up, but the dog was fine in his environment and played a large role in his groups’ social hierarchy. What are those poor dogs gonna do now?

I pity those who apparently can’t read, even more so than those who lack a heart. Please take the time to read over my comments then tell me again how I don’t have a heart for animals and innocent people. For your information, I have had 3 turtles, a cockatiel, 4 hamsters, and 6 fish. ‘Dufas’ is spelled ‘doofus’, and how could you say an animal is any more innocent than a starving child? I suppose all the world cares about are the cute things.. save the pandas and leave the malaria-stricken children outta our sight eh?

“Animals are amazing. People, are Meh at best most times.”
“Hey, it’s going to cost money to move your kid from California to New York with you. It’d be more practical to leave it behind and get a new one. That’s about how ridiculous some of those arguements are.
Some people seem to have no heart.”

Man.. I hope to God you guys never reproduce and run our country then.

I have read all of your posts multiple times and do not understand how (other than the ethical implications of spending time, money and energy doing one thing when you could spend it doing another, arguably more ethical, thing) you believe Brian’s actions were irresponsible. We all make moral judgements every time we spend our time or resources on something to benefit ourselves rather than others.

Not to do a disservice to Brian’s sense of generosity, but while he was, indeed, helping this animal have a better life- ultimately he was doing something for himself, namely saving a pet he loved from being killed.

Considering the sorts of terrible sacrifices and situations soldiers must endure in the course of serving their country, it seems rather mean spirited to begrudge one of these men the opportunity to save a beloved companion animal (which may in turn benefit his mental health both while he finishes his tour in Iraq, and when he returns home- not a negligible return when you figure 3000 dollars might pay for two months of therapy stateside.)

Perhaps you should point out the irresponsibility of the soldiers who return from war and spend thousands of dollars on a new pickup truck or a nice set of golf clubs. Perhaps you should also point out the irresponsible behavior of those who donate money to animal shelters rather than to starving Iraqi children. In fact, while you’re at it, you should point out how irresponsible it is for a congressman to respond to the request of an enlisted constiuent.

I am part of the Bring NUBS to America crew, I donated my money voluntarily, I donate my time and money to the local humane society as well as other non profit organizations that are helping to make this world a better place. I make that choice every time I write a check or volunteer. That is my choice and you do not have the right to tell me what to do with my hard earned money. Would that $25 have gone to another cause, no. If i want to donate to a campaign I do but i do not pull from one group to give to another. I gave Brian money because it was something I wanted to do. If you are going to condemn Brian for asking for a bit of help or me for giving him help, you should take a look at all the really messed up folks in this world that have millions of dollars but don’t do a thing to help the people around the world. I chose to help a man be with his dog just like I would hope that my friends would help me if I was in a hard situation with my animals.

As a dog and cat owner and general animal lover I know that when you and your animal meet it is like meeting a soul mate. You can’t walk away or leave them across the world. Brian never intended on getting a dog and never intended on bringing one home. It just happened. As a side note, NUBS has a son and that dog is staying in Iraq because Brian is well aware that he can not bring all the animals to the US, but for him NUBS is different.

He is not wasting anyone’s time, he has done all the leg work with the help of folks who are willing to give it to him. He asked us to help with about 2k worth of the 5k it costs to get NUBS home. We raised more and he is now asking us to make sure that no more money comes his way as NUBS is his dog and he accepts the financial responsibility.

He has a trainer lined up and a load of folks who are helping to make sure NUBS transition to US life is smooth. He did not want the publicity and honestly wishes that nothing was every said and that none of you new his name. It just happened because this is a heart warming story of animal/ human love in a place that sucks for everyone right now. There is not a single living being in Iraq that is having a good time, it is a bad place and something good came from it, that is all this story is about.

If you really want to condemn Brian that is your choice, we do live in American, but get your facts straight as he did not waste time/ money or military resource. The money and time he has used to get NUBS home was his or was donated by folks who wanted to help.

I know you didn’t say people don’t have that right. I asked those questions so you’d tell me what’s wrong with asking for, or offering, help. You think he should have left the dog if he had to ask for help to get it out, so you apparently have an aversion to one of those two things.

And finally, I don’t understand this aversion you have to “judgment.” We all look at people’s actions and statements and assign values to them. It’s how we create a moral and ethical position for ourselves in the world, and how we form opinions on right and wrong. You condemn an act of compassion, and I’ll judge it every time. The fact is that we all judge (you’ve judged Major Dennis, after all) and we all should.

Are you kidding? There’s no “arguments” or “logic” to be used here on either side. The good Major found something to love, and acted like he loved it, full of effort, passion, and time. End of story.

Are you really acting like it’s better to help people you don’t know than help someone you love? I’m sorry, if a relative/friend of mine is in trouble, they’re getting all my money, and all the needy people of the world aren’t getting a cent. Is animal overpopulation such a serious problem? People overpopulation is a bigger one. What other arguments do you have? Have any of you taken the time to read the actual story? Or read the actual e-mails from good old Major Dennis?

‘Course not. It’s too easy to find a story and spew all the bile and vitriol you have built up as some kind of sick therapy. Is this some kind of anger at the war? Or soldiers? Both those facts are irrelevant, as is the location, etc. What if this was just a person in some other random country, then it’s ok, because it’s not Iraq, and it’s not a soldier?

What about that person who said “how dare you take up the bureaucrat’s time?” Really? Bureaucrat’s time isn’t valuable or they wouldn’t be bureaucrat’s. They’re there to serve, or at least that’s what the job entails.

But now I’m sinking to your level, arguing when there’s no argument to be made. Something good happened here. Somebody acted with love, pure and simple. Be glad.

My example of the 100-cats-in-the-house lady was an oversimplification of a situation, just like the incredibly simple comparisons being drawn previously to attack Na’s point of view.

c-dub, surely he knew that he would be leaving the country at some point. Why couldn’t he have found a home for that dog in its own country? Ostensibly, that is what the US forces are there to do: to make life better in Iraq. How is it irresponsible? I suppose in the same way when people do things without thinking of the consequences.

Read my previous post, zoomzoom, I didn’t say they didn’t have the right to dispense with their money as they pleased. Thanks anyways, but I’m not going to engage in a discussion where people simply attack me while ignoring my previous comments.

Why should he have left the dog in Iraq if he couldn’t come up with the money on his own? What difference does it make if he had to ask for help? If there were other people that wanted to see the dog in a better home (which there apparently where) why shouldn’t they have the opportunity to pitch in?

It’s called “charity.” There’s something wrong with charity? I know you don’t think it’s fair of me or c-dub to judge your values, but you’re making it impossible not to.

And you’re NOT making a judgment on someone else’s values? Can you explain the distinction you’ve created for yourself?

Yes, let’s say an elderly woman loves cats. If she can keep them all well-fed and healthy while not bothering the neighbors, then she should keep the cats. Why not? On the other hand, if she can’t care for them, or if they cause a nuisance or health hazard for her neighbors, then she should give them up, sure — because keeping animals in poor conditions, or making trouble for one’s neighbors, isn’t loving, generous, or loyal. The rules don’t exist for the sake of rules, they exist to support the common values of society. Overwhelmingly, those values land squarely on the side of virtues like love, generosity and loyalty (except in certain cases, I suppose, like yours).

In any case, calling this guy irresponsible takes the cake. He showed nothing BUT responsibility. Towards whom did he act irresponsibly? Certainly not towards the dog, and certainly not towards the people he asked for help (and whom offered it of their own will). He did what it took to make sure an animal in his care thrived. Take a look around, ted. Everyone should be so irresponsible.

Let’s say an elderly woman loves cats. She loves them so much, she rescues strays and takes them home. She lives with 100 cats. Surely she is valuing love, generosity, and loyalty over practicality, money, and rules. The animal control officers who take her cats away to be euthanized must be very heartless.

I don’t know if asking for help can be criticized, but if he couldn’t afford to spend the money to ship the dog, he should have tried to find it a home in its own country. People can dispense with their money as they please – they can send it to that deposed Prince in Nigeria, if they want – but dude lacks responsibility.

It is actually fair to call people heartless when they value practicality, money, and rules over love, generosity and loyalty.

Now, jen suggests that dogs and children are the same thing.

1: the soldier was asking other people to pay to send the dog to the USA.

2: he was also asking for all manner of rules to be waived in order to get the dog across the border.

3: the “leave your kid in California” argument is absurd. A dog is not a child. A dog’s life is not equal to the life of a child. Bottom line.

No need to call people heartless just because they’re being practical. This soldier isn’t adopting a dying Iraqi child. Rather, he’s taking food from the mouths of Iraqi chldren who would otherwise be eating dog tonight.

The reason this man felt the need to get this dog home is because he fell in love with it. The idea that he should just leave it behind is horrible. Some people have no heart.

Hey, it’s going to cost money to move your kid from California to New York with you. It’d be more practical to leave it behind and get a new one. That’s about how ridiculous some of those arguements are.

Some people seem to have no heart.

MelMon8– good luck with your new doggy!

PS… This is my first pet ever!

Yes I was criticizing Dennis for spending so much on a dog because personally, I am baffled by it, as for criticizing him for not doing enough for everyone else using his own money- I intended to argue that in relation to Neatorama’s “Banana Wall” article 5 days ago and how the responses to the articles were so different when they were practically the same thing IMO.

There are some things that can’t be so easily replaced. You can’t place a value on good relationships.

I answered the ‘valuable bureaucrat’ question in #25, btw.
I mentioned the banana wall article because it’s basically the same situation as this one is: http://www.neatorama.com/2008/02/10/wall-of-bananas/

If the artist that made the banana wall donated money to feed starving kids, cool. As for your questions, #1: please read my comment #35, and #2: because they want to? I don’t convince people to buy my art, it’s their decision.

I’m not quite if you understand me though, because I totally agree with your second paragraph. Art and creativity is indeed a vital part of our world.

I take that back, of course: you do have the right. I just think you should give a little more consideration to how you exercise it.

And I don’t know what “a banana wall” is, and you’ll have to find someone else to take that up with.

Oof, sigh. Do I really have to explain your comments to you? In your post #14, you asked how many kids could be fed with the $3,000 — and said that the cost of the banana wall art could be put to better use as well. So, I’m asking you, since you’re an artist, why shouldn’t the money spent on your art be used to feed starving kids, too? Why should anyone buy your art, only to have you donate some portion of it, when they could donate the whole amount themselves?

My point is this: yes, people spend money on things that are less important than starving kids. And yes, we should spend MORE money on things like that. But how miserable would the world be if we only valued the necessities? If we deferred all art and creativity until the eradication of suffering, those things simply wouldn’t exist – nor could they be used as tools to build awareness. You, as an artist, should understand that better than any of us.

I got it, I just wanted to cover my bases