MINORITY WAR DEATHS: AN UGLY MYTH

NY POST` ^ | 10/14/02 | JAMES A. LACEY

[Tumbleweed_Connection]

AS the United States inches toward war, an ugly myth is getting another public airing: that minorities and the poor do most of the dying in combat.

Rep. Charles Rangel (D-Harlem) made the claim again just last week, saying he opposed the anti-Iraq resolution because the military is largely made up of black, Hispanic and poor whites who join for economic reasons.

[calljack]

Considering that the armed forces usually vote majority Republician, I conclude that more Republicians die in war than Democrats. This is an amazingly stupid post, even for MurryMom, and that is saying something.

[KC_Conspirator]

ChickenHawk?

First of all, you colossal hypocrite, where were you during the years 1993-2000 with your ChickenHawk comments?

Second, in case you forgot, we are a nation made up of civilian command of our armed forces. By your partisan stadards, people like James Madison and Benjamin Franklin could have never been president or served in our government. But of course you must think we live in a Napoleonic Republic with an Emperor?

Taske your hate America speech elsewhere.

[xJones]

The Chicken Hawks have done everything they can to avoid military service.

And how you agonized over Clinton's lying draft dodging when he sent troops into Kosovo. No doubt his lack of experience made him bomb the aspirin factory in Sudan and that poor camel in Afghanistan. If he'd only stopped wanking off in the sink long enough, he might have accepted Sudan's offer to hand over bin Laden in 1996.

[MurryMom]

...where were you during the years 1993-2000 with your ChickenHawk comments?

During the Clinton-Gore years of stock market prosperity and an unbroken record of 8 consecutive job growth years (remember what that Golden Era was like?), I was defending Viet Nam veteran Gore from insulting comments like yours.

Little Dumbya has said he intends to unite the country behind him and against terrorism. Sounds like the leadership skills of your Fearless Leader are open to question, after all.

[MurryMom]

Considering that the armed forces usually vote majority Republician, I conclude that more Republicians die in war than Democrats.

When soldiers die in war, nobody bothers to ask the corpses whether they were Democrats or Repukies. So how am I supposed to refute your reckless, insulting, and probably untrue statement?

[dighton]

... This is an amazingly stupid post, even for MurryMom ...

I'm afraid to look.

[Prodigal Son]

I know you're the resident democrat here and have been around for quite some time but I wish you wouldn't refer to the President as Dumbya. What on Earth makes you think he is dumb? He has politically outmaneuvered the combined minds of the democratic party (which admittedly, isn't saying much), he's out rascaled the French, the Russians, the UN. He's got Clinton's best buddy Tony Blair (L- UK) sidled up to the bar with him. He's got the overwhelming support of the American people behind him. He's put together a totally awesome cabinet and he has confounded, bewildered and panicked the press and political pundits at large on a global scale. Also, don't forget the outstanding job he did with killing Kyoto.

On a side note. As a former soldier, I hold no particular ill will towards people who did or didn't serve during Viet Nam. A whole slew of Americans ran off to Canada and Jimmy Carter (D- Ga) said it was all okey dokey. So, the most recent Nobel Laureate basically forgave everybody for whatever "disgraceful" tactic they used to avoid the war.

Regarding Saddam (D- Iraq), this is something we have to deal with, one way or the other. Dubya (R- TX) has stated repeatedly that he doesn't want it to come to war- that the goal is Regime Change. Failing Regime Change by other means, we will facilitate regime change via military intervention and take Saddam (D- Iraq) out of the picture. This was also the stated goal of Clinton (D- Arkansas). Where's the problem?

[denydenydeny]

When soldiers die in war, nobody bothers to ask the corpses whether they were Democrats or Repukies.

Um...Democratic politicians (Ron Kirk, Charlie Rangel) ALWAYS like to point out their race, to the point of lying about it. That was the point of this article.

[VOA]

ping for interesting article...
The "people of color will pay in blood for oil" argument by pacifists/Sadaam-sympathizers
is getting a lot of play on talk radio here on the West Coast.

This is an interesting bit of demographic research that blows that out of the water.

[MEGoody]

I presume that you would call Clinton a 'chicken hawk'? After all, Bush WAS a pilot whereas Clinton spent his time in England and did't serve at all. Think Clinton didn't order our guys out to fight and die? Better check his record. (I will be very surprised if you bother to answer.)

[Prodigal Son]

When soldiers die in war, nobody bothers to ask the corpses whether they were Democrats or Repukies.

What they all were is volunteers. Nobody 'sent their sons and daughters off to die'. These were adults who knew what they were signing up for. I met many soldiers in my 8 yrs who were straight up about it- they would prefer to die in combat. That's no lie. They considered it a totally honorable way to go and that's what they dreamed about.

Personally, I thought this was a little flaky, but I would agree that dying on the battlefield in the defense of your country and it's values is immensely preferable to being shot in the back by a lunatic sniper while you're pumping gas or being killed en masse with no means to defend myself by terrorists like Osama bin Laden (D- Saudi Arabia).

[MEGoody]

8 consecutive job growth years? Pardon me, but the NY Times just had an article this morning that would refute that statement. You might want to read it.

[ladyinred]

The thing is, if the left doesn't use the age old cliches to discredit the President, they will have to come up with new ones, an exercise of the brain that they are unwilling or unable to perform.

War for oil
Party of the rich
Robbers of social security
mean spirited bigots
gun nuts
children haters
homophobes
blah,blah, blah

I know I missed many, but you get the idea. These things have worked for them over and over, so why change now? (yawn)

[MurryMom]

I presume that you would call Clinton a 'chicken hawk'?

No, you presume wrong. I wouldn't call Clinton any kind of hawk because on the few occasions he sent our troops into harms way, it made a lot of sense to me and to Republican leaders in Congress who offered their advice.

The Clinton-Gore team at least had one man who served in Viet Nam. The * administration has none. Their foolish posture on the Iraq situation deserves as much scorn as we voters can give.

[sweetliberty]

"Pilots are mostly whites, while blacks make up less than 4 percent of Special Forces units."

Obvious discrimination. < /sarcasm > Of course, they want it both ways. They would see these statistics and claim exactly that, that blacks are discriminated against in the elite forces, without once considering that just maybe they are just far less likely to seek out those positions, or even less likely to qualify. Oh horrors at the very suggestion that just perhaps selection would be based on a combination of desire plus qualification!

In any event, you are obviously attempting to confuse the issue with facts.

[WaveThatFlag]

>The Clinton-Gore team at least had one man who served in >Viet Nam. The * administration has none. Their foolish >posture on the Iraq situation deserves as much scorn as we >voters can give.


OK, I've had just about enough of this crap. Al Gore "served" as a journalist in Viet Nam. This is about a close to draft-dodging as the son of highly-placed senator can come while outwardly apprearing to have served willingly. The man was never in harm's way, never fired a weapon, and the position was a calculated move by his father who orchestrated him political career from an early point. In otherwords, upon further review, the fact that Al Gore "served" in Viet Nam is actually a negative once all the facts are studied. You are such an idiot that I would have let this one pass, if you didn't return to it on three seperate occasions. In the future, you would be wise to let this sleeeping dog lie.

[KC_Conspirator]

What comments are those? I remember the 8 years of prosperity from 1981-1989, but the current economic tiems and downturn you are referring began in the summer of 2000, unless of course you want to refute all the facts coming off of Wall St. and the government.

One of the many things inherited by the Bush administration, besides a recession, was a weakened defense. So when the polls show (and rightly so) that the American people blame Herr Klinton for 911, it must burn you up.

[Prodigal Son]

Uhh. You're responding to the wrong poster. I never made this comment. But I forgive you because I realize the world presents added difficulties to those of particular political parties ;-)

I'll give you a hint to help you though- the person who made the comments to which you wanted to respond is called MEGoody and the comments were made in post number 30.

[Caesar Soze]

The Clinton-Gore team at least had one man who served in Viet Nam. The * administration has none.

You're absolutely right. How can we trust anyone who hasn't served in Vietnam to do anything correctly? Clearly, your scalpel-like mind has cut to the truth of the matter: Vietnam is the one benchmark by which all persons should be judged.

Just out of curiosity, how much combat did you see?

[sweetliberty]

"I wouldn't call Clinton any kind of hawk because on the few occasions he sent our troops into harms way, it made a lot of sense to me"

It would! If I were you I would not be so quick to reveal my ignorance as you seem bent on doing.