Captive, or “canned” hunting, involves animals in fenced enclosures who have no ability to espace. Some ranches are quite large, while others are only a matter of acres. The animals on captive hunts range from deer and elk to exotic species like zebra and antelope, and even species listed as Critically Endangered and Extinct in the Wild under CITES like the scimitar-horned oryx, the addax and the dama gazelle. Many animals on captive hunts are obtained from zoos and roadside circuses when they become too old to draw a crowd. Many of the animals who are shot are tame and lured to a bait bile at a specific time each day. This is hardly fair and hardly sport.

Please visit the HSUS’s website and view why they oppose hound hunting. The HSUS doesn’t say the dogs are treated like slaves - they’re treated like disposable hunting equipment. Many hunters abandon or shoot their dogs when they fail to hunt well, or become old, sick or injured. Animal shelters in many states are flooded with unwanted hunting dogs. Some report that 90% of their intake consists of abandoned hunting dogs. They also report that the dogs are typically emaciated and are hearworm positive. The dogs are often found having been shot, covered with fleas and ticks, and often afflicted with cancer or other ailments. It is wrong to dump their “trash” on local shelters. These dogs are often poorly socialized and difficult to find homes for, and are therefore often euthanized. These dogs are frequently hit by cars and maimed or killed when they’re pitted against a bear. The HSUS never states that the tracking collars control where the dogs go, but many hunters fit their dogs with high-tech radio telemetry devices so that they can simply follow along in their truck. It is unfortunate that so many people view these animals as disposable, and even when the dogs are found and the hunters are called, the hunter states that the dog didn;t hunt well and he doesn;t want her anymore.

In the case of Iraq and Afghanistan, I feel it should be the responsibility of NATO to enforce the Laws of Armed Combat on countries within the organization. (I would say the United Nations but in the past few years they’ve proved to be ineffective or maybe unconcerned.) As a part of NATO and in an operation using NATO provisions, ––NATO should hold countries and leaders (generals, presidents, whoever) responsible for violations of the Geneva Conventions.

There were more countries in NATO than just France that had issues with the way things went in Iraq. It’s just a matter of who would have guts to actually take it to the level of accusing the United States of war crimes (not just in Iraq, but ever).

If you remember earlier this year, several news agencies covered Vermont’s efforts to hold President Bush accountable for war crimes:

http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSN0454699420080305

but in the country, and the world, holding Western leaders accountable for committing the same atrocities of our “enemies” hasn’t yet caught on. If President Bush was Comrade Bush it would be a different story.

Exploring the other side in-depth would be something interesting to take on, but I don’t think that I would ever be able to find a way to justify the use of the atomic bomb in the that situation despite arguments presented in the past. Heavy direct bombing of military targets and training facilities (even targets embedded in civilian neighborhoods) could have been accomplished by the same American bombers, using 500 pound general purpose bombs, with less civilian casualties.

Would Iraq have been justified in using an atom bomb on Washington, DC to prevent the destruction of Baghdad and the Republican guard?

Sidenote: I know people would argue that war crimes are committed in parts of Africa all the time but you have to keep in mind that the Geneva Conventions only applies to parties/countries who have signed it.