#152 Az amerikai hadseregben szolgáló kutyák mindig egy fokkal magasabb rangúak, mint a velük együtt járőröző ember-katonatársuk - ezzel tudják elérni, hogy a befeszült, ideges katonák ne a kutyákon töltsék ki haragjukat, ha ugyanis rávernek egyet és ennek tanúja van, azonnal hadbíróság elé citálhatók a felettesük megtámadása miatt.
Feedek
- RSS 2.0
bejegyzések, kommentek - Atom
bejegyzések, kommentek
2013.06.12.
08:53
Írta: Horváth_Kálmán
Captain Rex
2 komment
Címkék: kutyák
Ajánlott bejegyzések:
A bejegyzés trackback címe:
https://napivaganysag.blog.hu/api/trackback/id/tr505340047
Kommentek:
A hozzászólások a vonatkozó jogszabályok értelmében felhasználói tartalomnak minősülnek, értük a szolgáltatás technikai üzemeltetője semmilyen felelősséget nem vállal, azokat nem ellenőrzi. Kifogás esetén forduljon a blog szerkesztőjéhez. Részletek a Felhasználási feltételekben és az adatvédelmi tájékoztatóban.
mrbloodbunny · http://mrbloodbunny.blog.hu/ 2013.06.16. 13:11:58
érdekes, és még hihető is.
skaven 2015.07.31. 14:00:56
nagyon jol hangzott pedig :( de sajna nem igaz:
Military dogs don't have ranks, they have classifications. And an assault on another soldier is an assault. An assault on an officer or a superior is serious in that if it's someone above you in your chain-of-command, and motivated by retaliation for being disciplined, or as part of an escalation of disobeying orders, it is very serious. But mistreatment of a dog by a handler is a serious offense no matter what, and there is no need to give the dog a rank that is meaningless, to prevent a carefully screened and trained handler from mistreating it. If superior rank were all that stood between a dog and mistreatment by its handler, then something is seriously wrong.
Probably some handlers jokingly refer to their dogs as their COs, and that's how the UL got started, and I think occasionally dogs that will participate in ceremonies are given ceremonial rank, but it's meaningless. It doesn't reflect education, training, or time in service, any of the things that make rank meaningful for humans.
Military dogs don't have ranks, they have classifications. And an assault on another soldier is an assault. An assault on an officer or a superior is serious in that if it's someone above you in your chain-of-command, and motivated by retaliation for being disciplined, or as part of an escalation of disobeying orders, it is very serious. But mistreatment of a dog by a handler is a serious offense no matter what, and there is no need to give the dog a rank that is meaningless, to prevent a carefully screened and trained handler from mistreating it. If superior rank were all that stood between a dog and mistreatment by its handler, then something is seriously wrong.
Probably some handlers jokingly refer to their dogs as their COs, and that's how the UL got started, and I think occasionally dogs that will participate in ceremonies are given ceremonial rank, but it's meaningless. It doesn't reflect education, training, or time in service, any of the things that make rank meaningful for humans.