It's nice to see a little formality and politeness finally being injected into the discourse on this board...Mr. Mother Fucker
![Cool 8-)](./images/smilies/icon_cool.gif)
It's nice to see a little formality and politeness finally being injected into the discourse on this board...Mr. Mother Fucker
If I had remembered his name, I wouldn’t have needed the description. He is a minor comedian and the venue was something like the comedy club. I didn’t think it was funny either but the audience did.RayThom wrote:I don't quite get the joke. Maybe if I had some context... who was this "black" comedian?liberty wrote:... I remember a joke by a black comedian that went something like this: I was in the military I wanted to go for twenty, but then there was a war...
Jim, you don’t think I used the proper respect. I capitalized his name what else could he want?Lord Jim wrote:It's nice to see a little formality and politeness finally being injected into the discourse on this board...Mr. Mother Fucker
liberty wrote: Well Mr. Mother Fucker I was referring to the society in general, but since you brought it up blacks are underrepresented in combat arms about 3 or 5 of their military population. Exactly why that is the case I don’t think anyone can say for sure. It just might be the politically correct but military leaders tend to say that is caused by the desire of black recruits to obtain civilian applicable vocational skills.. If that was the case it would seem that there would near zero reenlistment for blacks in the military. In that case we would have heard about it.
And your Vietnam era example is useless since then there was a draft then and a draft now is not possibly.
... "
World War II
During World War II, African-American enlistment was at an all-time high, with more than 1 million serving in the armed forces.[8] However, the U.S. military was still heavily segregated.The marines had no blacks enlisted in their ranks. There were blacks in the Navy Seabees and the United States Air Force (Tuskegee Airmen). The army had only five African-American officers.[8] In addition, no African-American would receive the Medal of Honor during the war, and their tasks in the war were largely reserved to noncombat units. Black soldiers had to sometimes give up their seats in trains to the Nazi prisoners of war.[8]
It would take over 50 years and a presidential order before the U.S. Army reviewed their records in order to award any Medals of Honor to black soldiers. This war marked the end of segregation in the U.S. military. In 1948 President Truman signed Executive Order 9981, officially ending segregation and racial inequality in the military.
That was then and this is now. In WW II, blacks were not wanted in combat and now they don’t want to be in combat. Blacks make up about 20 % of the military but only about 3 or 5% or so of combat arms. These statistic are hard to come by they are like some kind national security secret. But at any rate they are underrepresented in combat arms; they don’t want to serve in combat or at least not enough to volunteer.rubato wrote:liberty wrote: Well Mr. Mother Fucker I was referring to the society in general, but since you brought it up blacks are underrepresented in combat arms about 3 or 5 of their military population. Exactly why that is the case I don’t think anyone can say for sure. It just might be the politically correct but military leaders tend to say that is caused by the desire of black recruits to obtain civilian applicable vocational skills.. If that was the case it would seem that there would near zero reenlistment for blacks in the military. In that case we would have heard about it.
And your Vietnam era example is useless since then there was a draft then and a draft now is not possibly.
... "
Historically Blacks were kept out of combat positions because of racism. And we can say this for sure. See WWII.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism_ag ... ._militaryWorld War II
During World War II, African-American enlistment was at an all-time high, with more than 1 million serving in the armed forces.[8] However, the U.S. military was still heavily segregated.The marines had no blacks enlisted in their ranks. There were blacks in the Navy Seabees and the United States Air Force (Tuskegee Airmen). The army had only five African-American officers.[8] In addition, no African-American would receive the Medal of Honor during the war, and their tasks in the war were largely reserved to noncombat units. Black soldiers had to sometimes give up their seats in trains to the Nazi prisoners of war.[8]
It would take over 50 years and a presidential order before the U.S. Army reviewed their records in order to award any Medals of Honor to black soldiers. This war marked the end of segregation in the U.S. military. In 1948 President Truman signed Executive Order 9981, officially ending segregation and racial inequality in the military.
yrs,
rubato
Which of course immediately raises two questions: (1) If this statistic is “like some kind national security secret” where did *YOU* find it??? (Link, please!) and (2) Even if your statistic is correct, *HOW* do you know *WHY* Blacks are under-represented in combat arms—and whether it is by their choice or because of still-lingering institutional racism???liberty wrote:In WW II, blacks were not wanted in combat and now they don’t want to be in combat. Blacks make up about 20 % of the military but only about 3 or 5% or so of combat arms. These statistic are hard to come by they are like some kind national security secret.
ex-khobar Andy wrote:I'd never heard this; and usually sometimes with lib's posts there is a grain of truth, however tiny, which has to be separated from the chaff of mendacity it is surrounded with. So I did a little googling.
In less than 60 seconds I came across this in Wikipedia, which is always right.
"Blacks suffered disproportionately high casualty rates in Vietnam. In 1965 alone they comprised almost one out of every four combat deaths.[74][75]"
I don't really have an agenda except providing facts to counter lies if I find them. Lib I don't think that you are deliberately lying so much as just uninformed. You said, in a post above,liberty wrote:
Ex, what is your agenda I said nothing like that and I think you know it. It is off the subject but I don’t deny it. In world War II they were underrepresented and in Vietnam they were overrepresented in combat units. Was it racism in both cases. In World War II Southerner in congress opposed black combat troops; they feared returning blacks with combat skills. During Vietnam recruits were given an aptitude test and were assigned duties accordingly. Or at least that is the way it worked for me. Most blacks scored lower on the test and ended up in a combat M.O.S. Now the test could have been fixed but I don’t believe or want to believe a military man would do that. Military men obey orders whether they like, agree with them or not.
I assume, and maybe I am wrong, that you make this statement in order to bolster some sort of belief that blacks are in some sense cowardly. I can't see any other interpretation for "they don't want to be in combat." I think your statement (never mind your belief) is wrong but I looked up some data because I didn't know the real numbers off the top of my head.In WW II, blacks were not wanted in combat and now they don’t want to be in combat. Blacks make up about 20 % of the military but only about 3 or 5% or so of combat arms.
Let me make this clear there are different race of mankind, but all races share the same basic instincts, desires and abilities. Peoples regardless of race or ethnicity differ only by culture. However some cultures are more advantageous than others. And in some cultures the members are more concerned with their own wellbeing than society as a hold. That is the state of this nation and not just the black community.ex-khobar Andy wrote:I don't really have an agenda except providing facts to counter lies if I find them. Lib I don't think that you are deliberately lying so much as just uninformed. You said, in a post above,liberty wrote:
Ex, what is your agenda I said nothing like that and I think you know it. It is off the subject but I don’t deny it. In world War II they were underrepresented and in Vietnam they were overrepresented in combat units. Was it racism in both cases. In World War II Southerner in congress opposed black combat troops; they feared returning blacks with combat skills. During Vietnam recruits were given an aptitude test and were assigned duties accordingly. Or at least that is the way it worked for me. Most blacks scored lower on the test and ended up in a combat M.O.S. Now the test could have been fixed but I don’t believe or want to believe a military man would do that. Military men obey orders whether they like, agree with them or not.
I assume, and maybe I am wrong, that you make this statement in order to bolster some sort of belief that blacks are in some sense cowardly.In WW II, blacks were not wanted in combat and now they don’t want to be in combat. Blacks make up about 20 % of the military but only about 3 or 5% or so of combat arms.
Scooter wrote:How does one enlist in the armed forces and decline a combat role by choice?
It was something he "heard" somewhere, like Europeans don't eat corn, and Canada was an ally of the Soviet Union.Econoline wrote:If this statistic is “like some kind national security secret” where did *YOU* find it??? (Link, please!)
Let me make this clear there are different race of mankind, but all races share the same basic instincts, desires and abilities. OK I have no problem with that. Of course there are people who have more than one race no matter how it is defined. And in another sense we are all of a single race because we are all descended from a single Mitochondrial Eve and a single Y-chromosonal Adam. Peoples regardless of race or ethnicity differ only by culture. You are going to have to define culture here; and if it's defined in the usual sense of a set of beliefs such as religion, musical preferences, ceremonial rituals and so on it’s either trivial or in fact wrong. There are people of different races who share more culture with each other more than I do even though I am (at least visually) identifiable with one of those races. For example, I think that African-race blacks who live in France have culturally more in common with the whites of French origin who live there than I do, despite the fact that by the usual usages of ‘race’ I would be presumed to share a racial type with most of the indigenous Frenchmen. However some cultures are more advantageous than others. I have no clue what this sentence means. Can you give me an example of a culture which is more ‘advantageous’ than another? And in some cultures the members are more concerned with their own wellbeing than society as a hold. I need a reference for this - it may be true for all I know but I don’t know for which culture(s) this is true. You started off with a statement that blacks avoid combat, which as far as I can tell is just not true at least in the examples of the Korean, VN and Gulf wars. So I presume that you are saying here is that black culture is more concerned with their own well being. Note how we have elided from race to culture with nothing in between. Maybe am wrong and you really are just a racist dipshit. But I am one of life’s optimists and I will continue to believe that you are not. That is the state of this nation and not just the black community. Again I have no clue what you are getting at here.
Next time please use red, I need text to stand out vividly.ex-khobar Andy wrote:Let me make this clear there are different race of mankind, but all races share the same basic instincts, desires and abilities. OK I have no problem with that. Of course there are people who have more than one race no matter how it is defined. And in another sense we are all of a single race because we are all descended from a single Mitochondrial Eve and a single Y-chromosonal Adam. Peoples regardless of race or ethnicity differ only by culture. You are going to have to define culture here; and if it's defined in the usual sense of a set of beliefs such as religion, musical preferences, ceremonial rituals and so on it’s either trivial or in fact wrong. There are people of different races who share more culture with each other more than I do even though I am (at least visually) identifiable with one of those races. For example, I think that African-race blacks who live in France have culturally more in common with the whites of French origin who live there than I do, despite the fact that by the usual usages of ‘race’ I would be presumed to share a racial type with most of the indigenous Frenchmen. However some cultures are more advantageous than others. I have no clue what this sentence means. Can you give me an example of a culture which is more ‘advantageous’ than another? And in some cultures the members are more concerned with their own wellbeing than society as a hold. I need a reference for this - it may be true for all I know but I don’t know for which culture(s) this is true. You started off with a statement that blacks avoid combat, which as far as I can tell is just not true at least in the examples of the Korean, VN and Gulf wars. So I presume that you are saying here is that black culture is more concerned with their own well being. Note how we have elided from race to culture with nothing in between. Maybe am wrong and you really are just a racist dipshit. But I am one of life’s optimists and I will continue to believe that you are not. That is the state of this nation and not just the black community. Again I have no clue what you are getting at here.