Minorities cannon fodder-No Way!

[Bart]

Contrary to popular opinion,our white military men are the majority of those being killed in Iraq.


http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0701/07/tww.01.html


ROBERTS: We left one year and greeted a new one trying to absorb the grim number that 3,000 members of the U.S. military lost their lives in Iraq. Who were the 3,000?

The U.S. army has been hit the hardest in Iraq, accounting for most of the war dead. Marines suffered the second highest of the number of casualties followed by the navy and air force.

Almost 2,400 of the fallen were active duty, the National Guard took almost 400 casualties while the reserves lost 255 troops. Seventy-four percent were white, 11 percent Hispanic, 10 percent black.

Look how young they were. Almost 80 percent under 30 years old. Most were men, though 65 women also made the ultimate sacrifice.

 

[LabMan]

Bart,

A chilling fact that has to be visited,These white males that are being slaughtered,and many of the 50,000 wounded,will of course never be able to start families to add to the continuation of our race.

With the constant attacks on the White male coming from every direction imaginable do we dare to surmise......?

Hair standing up on the back of any ones neck yet ?

 

[Colonel_Reb]

Southern whites are also over-represented in wars and consequently in deaths, always have been. It has been a sore spot with me for years.

Edited by: Colonel_Reb

 

[Freedom]

There a few reasons for that Colonel that should cheer you up.

Iraq war: Support for Bush was overwhelmingly Southern and a little midwestern so his Iraq war was more popular there at first. The troops enlisted when the war was popular.

Vietnam: Hippies were all screaming out in California and there were lots of openly Communist sympathies at Northern school.

Korea: ? Southerners had a little more military tradition from WWII maybe, with MacArthur still in charge. Enlistment might have been more attractive in the South with the GI Bill.

WWII: The whole country was definitely in this full blast. America First might have had a bit of a Northern bias.

WWI: Easy to explain. In the North, the war was opposed by the anti-British Irish-Catholic Americans and Irish-Yankee tensions were high. German Americans did not want to fight against their country of ancestry. The South had no anti-British sympathies and wasn't affected by the liberal college campuses as much.

Spanish American War: TR built the Roughriders out of Texas I think.

Civil War: North had more soldiers enlisted in its army than the South.

The South has had more military importance than the North.Edited by: Freedom

 

[Colonel_Reb]

Good reasons freedom, but they really don't cheer me up. I started to post that poor whites have been over represented in our wars as well. The CSA was guilty of that as much as anyone.

The North also had over twice the whites the South did. As a part of the population, the South provided 1.3 million soldiers out of about 4.5 million white men, a higher proportion than in the North.

 

[screamingeagle]

The rough riders were recruited from the cowboys out west, and the upper classes in the Northeast. The reason was that both groups already knew how to ride horses.

I am unsure what state out west provided the most riders to the rough riders.

One of the first casualties was from the Tiffiny family, the famous jewelers

 

[Solomon Kane]

The honor-ethic and patriotism still found today amidst whites and southerners is generally an admirable thing. The problem is that nowadays they are and will continue to be sent to fight in wars that have absolutely nothing to do with American interests, the Old South, the old neighborhood, etc.

I was disappointed with the generally positive reaction (at least at first) emanating from the South in regard to the Iraq War. I was hoping they would see through it for the elitist-Zionist venture it was (and is).