Does anyone know the details about the *fact* that Morocco gave the US coalition 200 or 2000 (*?* -sorry I can’t remember the exact number) Monkeys to carry land bombs in the Iraqi war. I just read this in the NY Times Sunday paper; it was in an article about the comedian Jon Stewart’s political jokes. How awful. I just wanted to know if anyone here knows about this and if there has been any negative media, besides Jon Stewart’s jokes?

I saw an action alert from peta, in regards to us soldiers using chickens and other animals to find bombs (walk around until they hit one), but hadn't heard of animals delivering the bombs.

I hadn't heard of using animals to deliver bombs either.
But I was sickened by their use of dolphins to find mines. Did you see that on the news? All the news over here went on about it in a good way. Nobody thought about the dolphins. It's so sad.

I don’t think this is real. it just doesn’t seem piratical.

I dont think its real either, it would be too unaccurate.
Danny

I didn't find anything on any news page about monkey's delivering bombs so it was probably just a joke; but here's some info on the use of animals in the war.


Let slip the dogs, chickens of warp

By SIOBHAN McDONOUGH -- Associated Press

WASHINGTON (AP) -- U.S. troops are getting an assist from a military menagerie in the Iraq war.

Chickens, sea lions and a few good dolphins -- Makai and Tacoma -- have been in the fight. Dogs, good at alerting troops and relaying messages, are also sniffing out bombs in Iraq.

Warfare has long depended on the fowl and the four-legged, whether they were elephants bearing javelin throwers on the battlefields of the ancient world, camels spooking Byzantine cavalry horses with their pungent smell, or Spanish Conquistadors' mastiffs hunting down Peruvian Indians.

"Without animals, historically, war as we know it would have been flat-out impossible," says Dennis Showalter, history professor at Colorado College. "If human beings had to carry the weight of food they ate, munitions they use, on their own backs and feet, we might have stayed closer to our homes."

Animals are still showing their might on the front lines and in the crucial waters of a war zone.

Chickens have bypassed Kuwaiti dinner plates and landed in cages atop U.S. military Humvees. Their death-defying assignment: detect a possible Iraqi chemical attack.

As it turned out, they didn't defy death. Most expired after a short stint in the Iraqi desert -- flu is suspected -- and pigeons have taken their place.

Coalition forces brought in the two bottle-nosed Atlantic dolphins to detect sea mines in the British-controlled Iraqi port of Umm Qasr -- something they are trained to do without setting off the explosives.

"Now we have humans, machines and animals working together to clear the mines in Iraqi waters," said Tom LaPuzza, spokesman for the Navy's marine mammal program in San Diego.

LaPuzza calls dolphins' ability to detect things at a long distance, "the best show in town."

Sea lions have also been sent to the Persian Gulf and now are being tested to see how capable they are at capturing an enemy diver poised to attack a ship or pier. They also can be used to recover military hardware or weaponry in the ocean.

Bearing a clamp inside its mouth, a sea lion is supposed to approach a swimmer from behind and attach the clamp, which is connected to a rope that sailors aboard a ship can use to fish the swimmer out of the water.

Recently, Marines of the 7th Regiment brought in pigeons to take over from the 42 chickens that died. The birds will ride with a caretaker in vehicles and be used much like canaries in a coal mine. If they get sick, it could signal a chemical attack, giving Marines some time to don gas masks.

"When the air gets bad and the bird falls off its perch, it's time to leave," Showalter said.

Animal rights activists say creatures don't belong on the battlefield.

"Making these birds participate in our wars is not only cruel and unjust, it is a betrayal of the men and women who are serving under you," United Poultry Concerns said in a letter to President Bush.

The group said many more birds will die while being driven across the desert and there are better ways to do the job -- with sophisticated chemical detection systems.

Showalter says while animals have been vital in past wars, in modern warfare, they should be retired.

Still, he says, "You can make a good case that the chickens are a kind of placebo -- they help people feel better because a chicken is alive and we will trust a living thing's reaction to gas before something mechanical."

"Chickens act as a talisman, good luck charms."

Dogs have served in the U.S. military during every major conflict, as trackers, scouts, sentries, messengers, attackers, mine detectors and rescuers.

Their service over the years is not being overlooked. The Vietnam Dog Handlers Association has proposed a National War Dog Memorial for Washington. About 4,000 war dogs served U.S. armed forces during the Vietnam War, according to the group.

Horses were considered the supreme war animal from the end of the Bronze Age through the 19th century, and they still have a place in battle.

In the Afghan war, U.S.-backed rebels galloped against the Taliban, sometimes joined on steeds by American soldiers, half a century after the United States dissolved its last mounted fighting unit.

Horses have proved a handy way to move fighters and supplies in Afghanistan's rugged terrain.


Nothing new, but depressing nonetheless.

Originally posted by Beansprout
Does anyone know the details about the *fact* that Morocco gave the US coalition 200 or 2000 (*?* -sorry I can’t remember the exact number) Monkeys to carry land bombs in the Iraqi war. I just read this in the NY Times Sunday paper; it was in an article about the comedian Jon Stewart’s political jokes. How awful. I just wanted to know if anyone here knows about this and if there has been any negative media, besides Jon Stewart’s jokes?

Did the *fact* that the only source you have about monkeys carrying bombs (c'mon!) was in an article about a comedian...and the reference was to a comedian's joke? C'mon. :rolleyes:

Unfortunetely, Yes it is a *fact* that Morocco donated monkeys to the US coalition.
Unless the New York Times lies? Which i doubt.
The article was in last Sundays paper, 20 April 2003.
The article was about how sad it is that Jon Stewart a 'comedian' is one of the most honest political commentators in the US media.

BTW, does anyone here watch his show ..it's pretty funny and tends to be politically accurate.

Show me a ****ing source that states monkeys were donated to carry bombs.

The original source for the claim that Morocco gave 2,000 monkeys to Coalition forces in Iraq is an article in a newspaper in Morocco. No other substantiation is available.

The New York Times mentioned that the Jon Stewart show got their info from a Washington Post article (no record of which is available online.)
I found another mention a some crazy-ass web site, but it could only cite the Moroccan newspaper, and it sounded more like a joke.

Oh, and the *alleged* monkeys were not trained to carry bombs. Supposedly, they were to hop around and set off land mines. Not exactly an accurate system, considering the US military does have electronic mine detectors.

You might want to be careful about what you call a "fact".

Finally, the Times article is not about how "sad" it is that Jon Stewart provides honest political ommentary. The article clearly focuses on the quality of Stewart's material (jokes, skits, etc) about the war and related topics, and that his humor is bipartisan.

Originally posted by Tame
The original source for the claim that Morocco gave 2,000 monkeys to Coalition forces in Iraq is an article in a newspaper in Morocco. No other substantiation is available.

Well, i would think that if it were printed in an actual newspaper it's probably is true; but yes it could not be as well.


You might want to be careful about what you call a "fact".
Oh, yes! of cource. Why how could i be so foolish as to site the New York Times.


Finally, the Times article is not about how "sad" it is that Jon Stewart provides honest political ommentary. The article clearly focuses on the quality of Stewart's material (jokes, skits, etc) about the war and related topics, and that his humor is bipartisan.
For *me* that is what it is about. This is what stood out for *me*. This is why i asked for more details. And thank you for taking the time to do a computer search.

ok, so some *facts* are in dispute,

but it is still evident from kpickell's info that animals are used as tools in warfare,

and this in itself is evidence that war is a form of the failure of humanity to deal with problems... needing to use other creatures to make a war 'work' for them...

KAT NEW,
I totally agree with your post! And it is a*fact* that animals are being abused, IMO.

I don't see any reason that animals should be used in war. There are machines that can search for bombs. There are gauges that can check the air for toxins. The only reason we use animals is because they're cheap and nobody cares.

yeah. this topic probably gets to me more then any other. animals wer all hear before us. they should be givin the same amount of respect that humans are givin. as the smartest creature we could make things on this planit better. instead we have made it horrible. all the buildings around us at one point was open space for animals. if i had my way we would all live like indians, or buddhist monks if u will. think of how buatifull this planet would be if there wasnt buildings and power plants all around. no polluted air, tress, and forest all around. ha a little of topic so now i will get back to the point i was trying to make before i rambeld. we get ourselves in war. the animals had no say in it. still they are sent to do the dirty work for us. its plain out bull .

Originally posted by drew
as the smartest creature we could make things on this planit better.

I don’t want to kick up dust, but can you define the word *smart*?

Originally posted by drew
all the buildings around us at one point was open space for animals. if i had my way we would all live like indians, or buddhist monks if u will. think of how buatifull this planet would be if there wasnt buildings and power plants all around. no polluted air, tress, and forest all around.

Yeah, the "glory days" of subsistence farming, living in huts, life expectancies below 30, and infant mortality rates of 50%. Where do I sign up? :rolleyes:

Originally posted by That Alpaca Guy
I don’t want to kick up dust, but can you define the word *smart*?

I think the fact that you can communicate that question over fiber-optic cables in a written language should clear up any confusion.

hold up, I’m like going some were here.
you did not give me a explanation of the word 'smart'

well we have computers to comunicate with each other up to 100 miles or more away. we can invent things. we are the smartest creature.smart having knowledge to make things better .that is what i mean by smart . as for the living in a hut thing. maybe we didnt live as long, but everything was balnced. life on earth is heading for disaster the way we live. so whats more important. shorter life or life on earth for a longer period of time??

Originally posted by drew
shorter life or life on earth for a longer period of time??

Let's see...if my short life is miserable, what benefit is there for me for people 500 years from now to have short, miserable lives? I don't get any benefit from that...

well what gives you this idea that life is misarable if its short?

If a short life involves subsistence farming, periods of little food because of the subsistence farming, high infant mortality rates, and living exposed to the environment, then yeah, it would be miserable.

It is easy to romanticize a life like that - it would be another to live it.