A Real World Problem

[Clean]

... you know, one that's not a trumped up fabrication of the Left.

While this country worries about replacing Hamilton on the $10 bill with just the right woman, that makes just the right political statement, ISIS is having a contest that the top prizes are female sex slaves (all the women are, of course, Christians and other religious minorities) for men who memorize the Koran! Meanwhile our nutless President sits in his office doing ..... what? He unashamedly admits he doesn't even have a plan to fight ISIS.

I think that long after our exhaulted first black President leaves office, America will be judged harshly for it's lack of leadership against ISIS. Clinton's inaction in the Rawandan Genocide pales in comparison.

ISIS has already committed countless unspeakable acts on Yazidi and Christian girls and women in Iraq, but the terrorist army may have reached a new low with a twisted new contest in which female slaves captured in war are given away as "prizes" to fighters who show the have mastered the Koran.

The shocking practice of giving away human beings as prizes, called "sibya," was organized by the Da'wa and Mosques Department in Al-Baraka province in Syria in honor of the beginning of the holy month of Ramadan and was announced June 19 on ISIS Twitter accounts, according to the Middle East Media Research Institute and the Clarion Project, two independent research institutes that track social media accounts linked to terrorist groups.


“By showcasing its slavery, ISIS is boasting that it practices Islam in its most literal interpretation, doesn't capitulate to public opinion and rejects modern interpretations.”

- Ryan Mauro, Clarion Project

An announcement on Twitter "begins with congratulations to ISIS soldiers and departments in the province upon the beginning of the month of Ramadan," MEMRI wrote, "It then announces the upcoming Koran memorization competition, at which it says participants will be tested and given prizes accordingly."

The statement lists the prizes planned for the top ten competitors, with the top three to each be awarded a female slave: 'Winner of the first place [will be granted] (sibya) [a female slave who was captured at war],'" the translation by MEMRI read.


An ISIS bulletin circulated on Twitter, (l.), lists prizes for a Koran memorization contest. The numerals are for money prizes, but above them are listed the top prizes - female slaves. (Clarion Project, Reuters)


The contest in Syria plays upon two major ISIS themes, said Ryan Mauro, national security analyst for the New York-based Clarion Project: They are the ones who most closely follow "true" Islam and the Islamic State is a “legitimate” state. The contest and its underlying competition demonstrate that fighters are studying the Koran, and that ISIS is not affected by international condemnation.

“By showcasing its slavery, ISIS is boasting that it practices Islam in its most literal interpretation, doesn't capitulate to public opinion and rejects modern interpretations,” Mauro said. “It is also showing it has a functional Islamic educational system and therefore is a real caliphate.

The timing of the announcement is significant as Ramadan is a time of year where Muslims are charged with rejuvenating their faith.

“Memorizing the Koran is a considered a pious and worthy thing to do and many memorization competitions are held around the world, especially during Ramadan,” the Clarion Project said in its June 21 report. “It is believed to be the month during which Mohammed received the Koran."

The chapters the Islamic State challenged its followers to memorize include “some of the most warlike passages in the entire Koran.”

Specifically the announcement, which told the competitors to come to one of four mosques including the “Mosques of Abu Bakr el-Sadiq, The Mosque of Osama Bin Laden, The Mosque of Abu Musab el-Zarqawi or The Mosque of el-Taqwa, and listed prizes, including "slave girls" and Syrian currency amounting to $500 and less.

“We ask the great lord to make your life easier and to grant you with what he loves and what pleases him,” the announcement concludes.

The treatment of girls and women captured by ISIS has become increasingly horrific and alarming, numerous human rights activists said.

In 2014, the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, a U.K.-based monitoring group, reported 300 Yazidi girls and women captured in Iraq were forced to convert to Islam and sold to ISIS jihadists in Syria for $1,000.

Last November, ISIS reportedly unveiled a menu of sorts for women and children for sale with women 40 and 50 years old sold for just $40, girls between 10 and 20 years old auctioned for $129 each, and children under 10 commanding higher prices. A Human Rights Watch report issued in April documented continued organized rapes, sexual assault, and other horrific crimes against Yezidi women and girls kidnapped from their homes and held as captives in Iraq and Syria.

The United Nation envoy on sexual violence reported in June that girls and women are being traded for as little as a pack of cigarettes, citing testimony of girls and women who were able to escape their captors.

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2015/0...s-away-sex-slaves-as-prizes-in-koran-contest/

 

[chango]

... you know, one that's not a trumped up fabrication of the Left.

I don't know your intention - but very few people take you seriously at about this point here ...

 

[Horn6721]

Chango
THAT is amusing.
So you think changing who is on the tenner is vitally important and needs to be taken seriously?

 

[WorsterMan]

I think that long after our exhaulted first black President leaves office, America will be judged harshly for it's lack of leadership

Yes, but I don't believe it will be limited to just ISIS.

 

[Mr. Deez]

Clean,

I doubt you'd get many detractors in condemning ISIS. They're not just bad guys. They're sick fucks, whose depravity knows no bounds. Does Obama have a strategy for dealing with ISIS? No, but what's he supposed to do? Who has actually put forth a strategy? The GOP has criticized him (and rightly so) for withdrawing our troops prematurely and with no contingency plans, but that's just Monday-morning quarterbacking. It's not a strategy for what to do now.

ISIS is outnumbered and outgunned by the Iraqi security forces (who are US-trained), but they're not willing to stop them. That leaves outside nations like the US. The US can bomb ISIS targets and send military advisers to support Western and sane Islamic allies (like Jordan), and we've done that. However, the next step is ground troops (meaning another full-scale US-invasion of Iraq and part of Syria), and who's going to advocate that? It would be expensive and difficult (though easily within our military's capabilities), but the real challenge would be political and tolerance for casualties.

For the most part, the American people (and modern Westernized white people in general) are big candy-asses when it comes to war. They're sometimes quick to jump in, but they don't have the stomach for a large number of casualties, and they don't have the sense of brutality to support our military doing what it takes to really win. They think it's a video game, and they don't react well when they find out it isn't. If we send ground troops into Iraq, several of them are going to get killed, and it's going to be ugly. ISIS will capture some of them and do sick things to them like they did to Muath al-Kasasbeh (the Jordanian pilot who got burned to death), and the videos will be online for the American people to see. The Cindy Sheehans will come back on the scene and demand we "end the war," and they'll get a sympathetic ear from the media and from the public. On the flip side, to actually destroy ISIS, our troops would have to kill a lot of people, including some innocent people - women, children, etc., and that will look politically incorrect and abusive.

Both ends of the equation (the graphic killing of US troops and the killing of civilians on the ground) are going to turn the American public off, and public support will wane in a hurry. Same is true of our Western European allies. Obama knows it. The GOP knows it. Western European nations' politicians know it. That's why nobody's rushing to send in ground troops. They're sitting on their hands, because they know the public isn't willing to pay the price by supporting the effort in the long term.

And what happens after ISIS is defeated? Obviously, we won't make the mistake of withdrawing all US troops, but there will be insurgencies just like there were after the previous Iraq War. US troops will get kidnapped and killed. Roadside bombs will blow off our troops' limbs, etc. We couldn't maintain political support to stop the insurgencies after that war. What makes you think that we will now?

So rip Obama all you want, but there's not a whole lot he could be doing that he's not already doing.

 

[Seattle Husker]

Clean,

I doubt you'd get many detractors in condemning ISIS. They're not just bad guys. They're sick fucks, whose depravity knows no bounds. Does Obama have a strategy for dealing with ISIS? No, but what's he supposed to do? Who has actually put forth a strategy? The GOP has criticized him (and rightly so) for withdrawing our troops prematurely and with no contingency plans, but that's just Monday-morning quarterbacking. It's not a strategy for what to do now.

ISIS is outnumbered and outgunned by the Iraqi security forces (who are US-trained), but they're not willing to stop them. That leaves outside nations like the US. The US can bomb ISIS targets and send military advisers to support Western and sane Islamic allies (like Jordan), and we've done that. However, the next step is ground troops (meaning another full-scale US-invasion of Iraq and part of Syria), and who's going to advocate that? It would be expensive and difficult (though easily within our military's capabilities), but the real challenge would be political and tolerance for casualties.

For the most part, the American people (and modern Westernized white people in general) are big candy-asses when it comes to war. They're sometimes quick to jump in, but they don't have the stomach for a large number of casualties, and they don't have the sense of brutality to support our military doing what it takes to really win. They think it's a video game, and they don't react well when they find out it isn't. If we send ground troops into Iraq, several of them are going to get killed, and it's going to be ugly. ISIS will capture some of them and do sick things to them like they did to Muath al-Kasasbeh (the Jordanian pilot who got burned to death), and the videos will be online for the American people to see. The Cindy Sheehans will come back on the scene and demand we "end the war," and they'll get a sympathetic ear from the media and from the public. On the flip side, to actually destroy ISIS, our troops would have to kill a lot of people, including some innocent people - women, children, etc., and that will look politically incorrect and abusive.

Both ends of the equation (the graphic killing of US troops and the killing of civilians on the ground) are going to turn the American public off, and public support will wane in a hurry. Same is true of our Western European allies. Obama knows it. The GOP knows it. Western European nations' politicians know it. That's why nobody's rushing to send in ground troops. They're sitting on their hands, because they know the public isn't willing to pay the price by supporting the effort in the long term.

And what happens after ISIS is defeated? Obviously, we won't make the mistake of withdrawing all US troops, but there will be insurgencies just like there were after the previous Iraq War. US troops will get kidnapped and killed. Roadside bombs will blow off our troops' limbs, etc. We couldn't maintain political support to stop the insurgencies after that war. What makes you think that we will now?

So rip Obama all you want, but there's not a whole lot he could be doing that he's not already doing.

We have to accept that we'll be in a low-grade war perpetually for decades at a minimum. At this point, our options are extremely limited. The only question at this point seems to be how many boots on the ground and/or whether they are combatting. Taking down ISIS means we have to fill the vacuum. This is eerily reminiscent to Afghanistan where policing the country will be impossible.

The tragic consequences of the Bush-Cheney decisions can't be understated. The Gulf War II may be the single worst foreign relations move in our relatively limited history as a country.

 

[BevoBeef]

The tragic consequences of the Bush-Cheney decisions can't be understated. The Gulf War II may be the single worst foreign relations move in our relatively limited history as a country.

How quick we are to forget the VIetnam War, in which we were kicked out of that country militarily. At least in Gulf II we were left with our dignity from a military standpoint.

 

[Seattle Husker]

The Vietnam War was certainly a dark moment but I'm think if you look at being mired in the Middle East for decades compared to the confined time frame of Vietnam, the Gulf War II may be more impactful. Of course, I say this knowing that withdrawal from Vietnam gave our military a hangover it still struggles to shakeoff.

 

[BevoBeef]

The Vietnam War was certainly a dark moment but I'm think if you look at being mired in the Middle East for decades compared to the confined time frame of Vietnam, the Gulf War II may be more impactful. Of course, I say this knowing that withdrawal from Vietnam gave our military a hangover it still struggles to shakeoff.

If this continent ,i.e., mainly Canada-USA-Mexico, can push ahead to become more energy independent, then we are not mired in the Middle East, which I view as a location. What we are mired in is a radical portion of a major religion --- or however you want to define jihadism. This philosophy will pop up in other locations than in the Middle East. We are just now starting to achieve our independence from the oil in the Middle East, and my believe is that will cause the Middle East to become less of a strategic problem for the USA. That will cause us to lose the ME as an important consideration for us, and our decision making will be less concerned about our loss of oil availability.

 

[NJlonghorn]

That will cause us to lose the ME as an important consideration for us, and our decision making will be less concerned about our loss of oil availability.

So long as Israel remains in the Middle East, the region will remain important to US foreign policy. Our objectives and strategies would change, but we will always be there.

 

[Seattle Husker]

If this continent ,i.e., mainly Canada-USA-Mexico, can push ahead to become more energy independent, then we are not mired in the Middle East, which I view as a location. What we are mired in is a radical portion of a major religion --- or however you want to define jihadism. This philosophy will pop up in other locations than in the Middle East. We are just now starting to achieve our independence from the oil in the Middle East, and my believe is that will cause the Middle East to become less of a strategic problem for the USA. That will cause us to lose the ME as an important consideration for us, and our decision making will be less concerned about our loss of oil availability.

It's not a resource issue anymore but one of ideology. Bin Laden showed that he can reach us from a cave in Afghanistan. The toppling of the ME despots set in motion a chain of events that has allowed ISIS to not only emerge but prosper. There is no will to fight the radicals by the ME countries not named Israel. Saudi Arabia will be the next regime to go down in flames.

 

[Mr. Deez]

The Vietnam War was certainly a dark moment but I'm think if you look at being mired in the Middle East for decades compared to the confined time frame of Vietnam, the Gulf War II may be more impactful. Of course, I say this knowing that withdrawal from Vietnam gave our military a hangover it still struggles to shakeoff.

SH,

Respectfully, that's a bit hyperbolic. GWII was a disaster. There's no question about it, but it's not why we're mired in the Middle East. 9/11 and the rise of global Islamic terrorism pretty much guaranteed we'd in the Middle East in some capacity whether we had done GWII or not. Remember, we're still farting around in Afghanistan, which started before GWII. Furthermore, suppose we hadn't gone into Iraq. Would things be better? Maybe, but not necessarily. Hussein might still be in power, but we have no idea how he would have behaved. He was allied with Syria and could have cause a hell of a lot of trouble. Even if he would have behaved himself, he could easily be dead now - either from age or from getting overthrown. The Arab Spring happened in the last few years, so who knows what Iraq would look like today had there not been a GWII? An Islamic fundamentalist regime may have come to power anyway, but it would have inherited the entire Iraqi military structure.

A few things to keep in mind about Vietnam

1. We were in Vietnam for 19 years. We were in Iraq for about 8 years.

2. The US casualties in Vietnam were much, much worse. As bad as it was, GWII was a cakewalk by comparison.

3. Vietnam was much more culturally damaging at home. People agreed and disagreed about the GWII, but most people moved on with their lives after the war was over. Vietnam caused deep divisions that still exist. Our veterans got crapped on when they came home from Vietnam, which caused great conflict. That didn't really happen with GWII.

Perhaps worse, we had a horribly racist draft policy that completely transformed how black Americans view their country and permanently so. We let rich white boys whose daddies could afford to pay for college to completely avoid service. So while they were partying, smoking pot, banging chicks, and listening to Iron Butterfly, poor black boys who weren't as lucky were forcibly sent into hideous conditions to fight and die for a country that didn't even give them basic rights. You know I'm politically incorrect, am largely unsympathetic to the civil rights movement of today, and don't throw the racism charge out there often or lightly, but on that issue, I would have been right there with the Black Panthers. That policy was utterly indefensible and one of the most morally depraved actions our government has ever taken against its people. Black patriotism was severely undermined, and it will never come back the same way it was before. It's hard to blame them.

4. Vietnam blew the American public's confidence in the military. We were invincible before Vietnam, but it took another 15 years before the American public was comfortable using the military again after Vietnam. GWII hurt our credibility, but nobody questions our military's capability.

Again, GWII was bad and a big mistake, but I think its proximity in time might be skewing your impression of it. Things can be worse.

 

[Horn6721]

MrD
That was an excellent overview. Really superb.
One point that I want to make is that yes as has been the case for all drafts wealthy families and some not so wealthy( Clinton) found ways to avoid the draft but the % of blacks who served in Viet Nam was less than the % of blacks to total USA population.
Of the people who actually served in VN 88.4% were White, 10.6% were black.
There are other % out there but most still show the % was not horribly disproportionate.
It has been the race baiters and the activists who spread the claim that blacks were nothing but fodder.
Most blacks who served there completely disagree. If you were out there in a unit made up of blacks and whites you lived and died with each other. Much like athletic teams get past race.

 

[Hollandtx]

Mr. D,
As stated you make a masterful overview of Vietnam. I would like to add that the Vietnamese had neither the desire or intention of taking over the world. The Vietnamese weren't actively recruiting "soldiers" from all parts of the world, including the US (unless you count Jane Fonda ) ISIS has, at the very least, sympathizers embedded not only in the US already, but also in our Ally countries. The Vietnamese hadn't committed acts of terror, large and small, all across the globe.

You are right in that there is no real plan, and that is because, in my opinion there isn't a real solution. This ISIS "army" has changed the rules of war in every aspect. I don't know how they will be stopped, and I haven't heard anyone with any ideas.
I also agree with your "Americans are candy asses when it comes to war" statement. I will never imply that any one death is greater than another, but when you compare the deaths of servicemen in Gulf Wars I and II, the entire number of fatalities is almost comparable to one days worth of a major battle in WWII. I hope it never comes to it, but if and when we do come up with a plan, the US and the world needs to be ready for a higher number of casualties if we plan to win.

 

[Mr. Deez]

MrD
That was an excellent overview. Really superb.
One point that I want to make is that yes as has been the case for all drafts wealthy families and some not so wealthy( Clinton) found ways to avoid the draft but the % of blacks who served in Viet Nam was less than the % of blacks to total USA population.
Of the people who actually served in VN 88.4% were White, 10.6% were black.
There are other % out there but most still show the % was not horribly disproportionate.
It has been the race baiters and the activists who spread the claim that blacks were nothing but fodder.
Most blacks who served there completely disagree. If you were out there in a unit made up of blacks and whites you lived and died with each other. Much like athletic teams get past race.

It's wikipedia, but it has an explanation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War_casualties#Disproportion_of_African_American_casualties

It wasn't just about membership in the military. It was also about placement into combat units, where the numbers looked worse. To be fair, the military did change the rules and fix the inequity, but by then a lot of folks had already been killed.

 

[Horn6721]

What is that old saying about lies damn lies and statistics?
There is no doubt that men from the lower economic/education levels would be put into combat units.That applied to blacks and whites.
That song " I ain't no Senator's son" sums it up.

There was no conspiracy to make sure blacks got sent into combat as fodder no matter how many race baiters andwhite guilt writers try to make it so.
From David Horowitz article
"Department of Defense, US Casualties in Southeast "Asia by Grade and Military Service, Hostile and Non-Hostile Deaths from 1 January 1961 through 31 December 1978 by Race
Department of Defense, US Casualties in Southeast "Asia by Grade and Military Service, Hostile and Non-Hostile Deaths from 1 January 1961 through 31 December 1978 by Race :

During the Vietnam War era (draft era to be precise) blacks of military age made up 13.5 percent of the total population, but only 9.7 percent of the Vietnam era military forces were black.

88.4 percent of the men who actually served in Vietnam were white.

10.6 percent of the men who actually served in Vietnam were black.

86.3 percent of the men who died in Vietnam were white.

12.5 percent of the men who died in Vietnam were black.

86.8 percent of the men who were killed in actual battle were white.

12.1 percent of the men who were killed in actual battle were black.

In sum, while the percentage of blacks of military age was 13.5 percent of the population, they accounted for 12.1percent of the deaths in Vietnam. "
http://rense.com/general17/thetruththenumber.htm

What is really true is the lower economic classes, both black and white, bore the brunt. Don't they always?

"76% of the men sent to Vietnam were from lower middle/working class backgrounds.

• Thee-fourths had family incomes above the poverty level; 50% were from middle income backgrounds."

More interesting stats from history-world.org
http://history-world.org/vietnam_war_statistics.htm

 

[Mr. Deez]

Nobody said it was overtly racist - meaning that there formal racial quotas or requirements that blacks get put in more dangerous situations or get drafted. It was the disparate impact that came with being poor. Whites certainly got screwed as well, and fortunately, the problem was solved before the end of the war, which ended up making the overall numbers much less severe. However, in the mid to late '60s, it was certainly unfair with blacks often making up 25 percent of combat units (almost double their proportion of the population).

 

[Horn6721]

MrD
[QUOTE="Mr. Deez, post......:]However, in the mid to late '60s, it was certainly unfair with blacks often making up 25 percent of combat units (almost double their proportion of the population).[/QUOTE]

I am not disputing that,just asking
Do you have a source? with maybe some specifics?

 

[Mr. Deez]

MrD
[QUOTE="Mr. Deez, post......:]However, in the mid to late '60s, it was certainly unfair with blacks often making up 25 percent of combat units (almost double their proportion of the population).

I am not disputing that,just asking
Do you have a source? with maybe some specifics?[/QUOTE]

See the wikipedia article. It referenced a source.

 

[Horn6721]

Mr D
?
I reread the wiki link. I did not find your stat:" However, in the mid to late '60s, it was certainly unfair with blacks often making up 25 percent of combat units (almost double their proportion of the population).

However I did find this."Blacks were suffering disproportionately high casualty rates in Vietnam, and in 1965 alone they comprised almost one out of every four combat deaths with 2 footnotes# 58 and 59
The wiki sources listed were 2 writers who merely repeated the stat with no attribution. Here is the quote from #59> " In 1965 alone African-Americans represented almost 25 percent of those killed in action."
Not from mid 60's to late 60's
and if that % is accurate that is very horrible but no one seems to know where that stat came from

BUT that also means then in order for the over all % of black combat deaths to be 12.1% that many years saw the % of blacks dying in combat as much less than than total to population .

 

[Horn6721]

I want to add some stats that are attributed:

34% Of Blacks who enlisted volunteered for the combat arms. . ( Impressive)
97% Of Vietnam Era Veterans were honorably discharged.

91% Of actual Vietnam War Veterans and 90% of those who saw heavy combat are proud to have served their country.

66% Of Vietnam Vets say they would serve again if called upon. ( this surprised me, Most Vets I've seen interviewed from current wars would go back)
http://www.veteranshour.com/vietnam_war_statistics.htm

 

[Mr. Deez]

The 25 percent stat is what's important, and you did find that. I inferred the mid to late '60s portion, because it was after that that DOD began making changes and making things more equitable - at least on the racial front. Poor folks were still getting screwed.

By the way, I'm a huge beneficiary of that system, because my existence depended on it. My grandfather was an aerospace engineer at the height of technological advancement in military air and space exploration and made very good money. That meant he could afford to send my dad to college, which let him avoid the draft. (To be clear, he didn't go to college to avoid the draft, and his dad (who was a retired career Naval pilot and WWII veteran) would have beaten his *** if he thought that was his motivation for going to college.) However, it was a huge advantage for him. Furthermore, if he had been drafted into the military, he wouldn't have met my mother, and I wouldn't have been born. However, just because it was good for me doesn't make it fair or right.

Like I said, things got better, and by the end of the war, blacks were actually slightly ahead. However, that's no consolation to the families whose husbands, brothers, and sons had already been killed. The draft laws should never worked the way they did. If we were going to use the draft, it should have applied to all able-bodied men. If you were a Ph.D. and they needed you in the infantry, then you should have gone to the infantry. You shouldn't have been allowed to sit at a college campus and smoke weed all day while your less affluent buddies were getting shot.

Also, don't take my outrage with the draft rules as any kind if indictment of the men who served. Those who served (voluntarily or through conscription, white or black) are heroes and should be proud of their service. It's also not an indictment of the war. I blame Kennedy and Johnson for screwing up the war, but I don't blame them for going. It was consistent with what had been our foreign policy since 1945, and they had good reason to believe we could win it. I judge politicians for what they knew at the time, not the hindsight I have 50 years later.

 

[Horn6721]

MrD
No I did not find your 25% stat.This is a pretty important subject especially with the white guilt, white supremacy, all whites hate blacks meme going on and this kind of misinformation only adds to the misperception that blacks were used as fodder in VN.
Can you see there is a huge difference between what you posted
" However, in the mid to late '60s, it was certainly unfair with blacks often making up 25 percent of combat units (almost double their proportion of the population)."
and the actual quote from the wiki link you provided( whose accuracy is never attributed)
"Blacks were suffering disproportionately high casualty rates in Vietnam, and in 1965 alone they comprised almost one out of every four combat deaths with 2 footnotes# 58 and 59"
Not mid 60's to late 60's but ONE year
Not 25% of combat units.
Plus that stat is not sourced so who knows from where it came.You are usually pretty particular about details that matter. To me that error mattered

I provided enough well sourced stats to show that blacks did not suffer disproportionately high casualty rates.
This is not to say blacks didn't suffer racism. yes they did. We should just keep it real instead of misrepresenting the facts.
There is enough of that going on right now with the media the race hustlers and the white guilters. They say something and all of a sudden it is viral and accepted as fact.

So you benefited from your father since he didn't have to go , Good for you. There were plenty of white and black boys who weren't lucky. However many of those went( black and white), served, came back and became successful husbands fathers and bread earners.
Life isn't fair.

 

[Mr. Deez]

MrD
No I did not find your 25% stat.This is a pretty important subject especially with the white guilt, white supremacy, all whites hate blacks meme going on and this kind of misinformation only adds to the misperception that blacks were used as fodder in VN.
Can you see there is a huge difference between what you posted
" However, in the mid to late '60s, it was certainly unfair with blacks often making up 25 percent of combat units (almost double their proportion of the population)."
and the actual quote from the wiki link you provided( whose accuracy is never attributed)
"Blacks were suffering disproportionately high casualty rates in Vietnam, and in 1965 alone they comprised almost one out of every four combat deaths with 2 footnotes# 58 and 59"
Not mid 60's to late 60's but ONE year
Not 25% of combat units.
Plus that stat is not sourced so who knows from where it came.You are usually pretty particular about details that matter. To me that error mattered

Actually, you misquoted the article. The quote was, "Blacks often made up a disproportionate 25% or more of combat units, while constituting only 12% of the military." It did not specify a year at all. You got that from the PBS article, which wasn't used in the relevant quote. And frankly, what's your point? The policy screwed poor people, and that disproportionately harmed blacks. They had reason to complain.

I provided enough well sourced stats to show that blacks did not suffer disproportionately high casualty rates.
This is not to say blacks didn't suffer racism. yes they did. We should just keep it real instead of misrepresenting the facts.
There is enough of that going on right now with the media the race hustlers and the white guilters. They say something and all of a sudden it is viral and accepted as fact.

I know that. I'm not a white guilter, and I'm generally hostile to race hustlers. You should know that. Frankly, nothing I post is going to go viral. I'm not that important.

So you benefited from your father since he didn't have to go , Good for you. There were plenty of white and black boys who weren't lucky. However many of those went( black and white), served, came back and became successful husbands fathers and bread earners.
Life isn't fair.

Life isn't fair, but our government isn't supposed to intentionally make it unfair. If we're going to resort to conscription, all able bodied men should be exposed to the draft. Not doing so is indefensible.

 

[Horn6721]

MrD??
Here is part of my problem
You posted that in mid 60's to late 60's blacks often made up 25% of combat units
combat units, not casualties. not deaths but units. pretty damning charge

when asked for verification you posted a wiki link that actually said:

"Disproportion of African American casualties[edit]
Blacks were suffering disproportionately high casualty rates in Vietnam, and in 1965 alone they comprised almost one out of every four combat deaths.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War_casualties#Disproportion_of_African_American_casualties

when I asked for a source for the 25% of combat units in 1965 were black assertion you posted
"See the wikipedia article. It referenced a source." The source it referenced is a PBS opinion piece with no verifiable facts.
But the PBS link had
"In 1965 alone African-Americans represented almost 25 percent of those killed in action."
with NO source.
then wiki used that same stat and citing an opinion piece with no source
then You posting that for 5 or so years blacks often made up 25% of combat units
again with no source.
That is just continuing to offer a pretty huge figure that has never been validated . Think the people who read those figures know they aren't accurate?

We agree things weren't fair, poor blacks and whites got screwed, as usual
and yet in the end the stats show blacks were NOT disproportionately screwed.
and I think the stat that 91% of those who saw combat were proud of their service reveals more than anyone making up numbers to further their agenda.