• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

White - 67%; Black - 16%; Hispanic - 13%; Asian - 2%

judasmachine

Diamond Member
Sep 15, 2002
8,515
3
81
Geez, why is their ethnicity an issue? Interesting that all through the Reagen/Bush Sr. Era military deaths averaged about 1900 people a year, then when Clinton takes office it drops to an average of about 800. Even the self-inflicted deaths went way down.
 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: judasmachine
Geez, why is their ethnicity an issue? Interesting that all through the Reagen/Bush Sr. Era military deaths averaged about 1900 people a year, then when Clinton takes office it drops to an average of about 800. Even the self-inflicted deaths went way down.
Interesting that the military under clinton was about 1/2 the size of the reagan military...
 

BaliBabyDoc

Lifer
Jan 20, 2001
10,737
0
0
Could you kindly provide evidence that the US military census during 1992-2000 was half the census of 1980-1988 . . . thnx.
 

BaliBabyDoc

Lifer
Jan 20, 2001
10,737
0
0
freerepublic

NewsMax
He suggested that the full dimension of the Clinton cutbacks were only now being felt. "During a president's term of office, what he does with the military has very little effect during that period of time. Each president inherits what was done in preceding periods."

Rumsfeld was responding to Democratic Party and media arguments that the U.S.'s success in the Afghanistan war shows that criticism of Clinton's military cutbacks is unjustified.

Separately, the New York Post reported Sunday that a full 89 percent of Clinton budget cuts under the president's "Reinventing Government" initiative came at the expense of the armed forces.

In his recent book "In the Arena," former Reagan administration Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger contends that President Clinton had reduced U.S. military forces by approximately 50 percent during his eight years in office.

FreeRepublic
Dallas Morning News
December 24, 1998 editorial

The Clinton administration is warning the Pentagon against seeking too much in the way of military pay increases. That makes fiscal sense. But if the White House wants to be as responsible about national security as it is about the budget, it should consider all the other reasons troops are giving for leaving the military.

Inadequate pay can certainly play a role, especially for enlisted personnel. They and their families should not have to resort to food stamps to supplement meager military paychecks. And given differences in housing costs around the country, greater housing allowances are advisable.

Yet for some, low pay is a secondary issue. Yes, Air Force pilots admit that they can make significantly more money in the civilian world. Civilian pay scales in excess of $100,000 a year are as attractive to them as they are to the vast majority of Americans.

But it is wrong for either the Pentagon or the administration to imply that military pilots are mercenaries. They joined because they wanted to serve their country. If they now find themselves thinking twice about extending their military careers, it is often because they choose not to sacrifice their family life to new realities. These include longer and more frequent deployments because of an expanded number of peacekeeping and humanitarian missions.

Similarly, pilots are bemoaning a lack of spare parts. This has left fewer fighters available for training. Pilots are on edge because they know that inadequate training can erode their skills, leaving them vulnerable in combat.

Both the Pentagon and the administration must acknowledge that the military has changed markedly from what it was at the beginning of the 1990s. If low rates of retention and recruitment are the problem the Pentagon says, pay raises are only a small part of the story. The stretched mission of the military is the larger context that deserves greater attention.

 

HappyPuppy

Lifer
Apr 5, 2001
16,997
1
71
You gotta admire us crackers. We're dumb enough to keep on rushing in where others fear to tread.:Q

Seriously, I don't know what those stats mean. There are more whites over there in combat gear than any other race. What does it prove?
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
Could you kindly provide evidence that the US military census during 1992-2000 was half the census of 1980-1988 . . . thnx.
I know you asked charrison but here is the DOD's numbers showing the significant decline in active military personnel.

ACTIVE COMPONENT ENLISTED FORCE
chart and totals of the same

1.82 million(1988) to 1.17 million(1998) Clinton left it at about 64% of Reagan's size. I consider that quite a significant drop;)
Enlisted Reserves also dropped about a quater million during the same time frame- from 988K to 745K.

CkG
 

bryanxt

Junior Member
Aug 28, 2003
2
0
0
Originally posted by: Vespasian
That's how U.S. soldier deaths in Iraq break down according to race/ethnicity (as of August 28).
But what's the overall ethnicity breakdown for soldiers on active duty? If the population of soldiers as a whole breaks down along roughly the same percentages, this isn't an issue. I don't think the enemy discriminates by race when shooting at Americans.
 

BOBDN

Banned
May 21, 2002
2,579
0
0
Originally posted by: HappyPuppy
You gotta admire us crackers. We're dumb enough to keep on rushing in where others fear to tread.:Q

Seriously, I don't know what those stats mean. There are more whites over there in combat gear than any other race. What does it prove?

As a percentage of US as a whole here are the numbers from 1998.

In 1998, the U.S. Bureau of the Census estimated the U.S.population to be 270,933,000 -- 82.5% White, 12.7% Black, 11.4%Hispanic* (all races), 3.9% Asian & Pacific Islander, and 0.9%Native American.

Compared with the numbers KOA in Iraq "Whites" are under represented. "Blacks" are over represented. "Hispanics" (Latinos) are over represented and "Asians" are under represented.

I'm not sure about the numbers of each in combat gear.

I'm not sure it matters which "race" is being killed in what percentage.

Bring them home or better yet don't start wars in the first place unless absolutely necessary. In self defense for instance.
 

KenGr

Senior member
Aug 22, 2002
725
0
0
From the 2001 Department of Defense Report on Diversity in the Military:

Race/Ethnicity. In FY 2001, African Americans were equitably represented in the military overall. In the enlisted force, African Americans were overrepresented among NPS active duty accessions (20 percent) relative to the 18-24 year-old civilian population (14 percent). Hispanics, on the other hand, continued to be underrepresented, with 11 percent among NPS accessions compared with nearly 16 percent for comparable civilians. FY 2001 representation of "Other" minority enlisted accessions (Native Americans, Asians, and Pacific Islanders) stood at approximately 6 percent, slightly more than in the civilian population (5 percent). Not only did African Americans enlist in high proportions, but higher retention rates boosted their representation among Active Components enlisted members to 22 percent in contrast to the 13 percent of African Americans among 18-44 year-old civilians in the workforce. With more than 9 percent of active duty enlisted members counted as Hispanic, this ethnic minority maintained its low proportion relative to the comparable civilian population (13 percent).



Source: DOD Report

I would guess this hasn't changed much in the last year or two, but the 2002 report doesn't seem to be out yet.

Looks to me like casualty rates pretty much match up with the composition of the military, just like they did in Vietnam and everything in between. Having some exposure to the military and how they do business, I believe the US military is about the most color blind organization in our society.





 

BOBDN

Banned
May 21, 2002
2,579
0
0
Originally posted by: KenGr
From the 2001 Department of Defense Report on Diversity in the Military:

Race/Ethnicity. In FY 2001, African Americans were equitably represented in the military overall. In the enlisted force, African Americans were overrepresented among NPS active duty accessions (20 percent) relative to the 18-24 year-old civilian population (14 percent). Hispanics, on the other hand, continued to be underrepresented, with 11 percent among NPS accessions compared with nearly 16 percent for comparable civilians. FY 2001 representation of "Other" minority enlisted accessions (Native Americans, Asians, and Pacific Islanders) stood at approximately 6 percent, slightly more than in the civilian population (5 percent). Not only did African Americans enlist in high proportions, but higher retention rates boosted their representation among Active Components enlisted members to 22 percent in contrast to the 13 percent of African Americans among 18-44 year-old civilians in the workforce. With more than 9 percent of active duty enlisted members counted as Hispanic, this ethnic minority maintained its low proportion relative to the comparable civilian population (13 percent).



Source: DOD Report

I would guess this hasn't changed much in the last year or two, but the 2002 report doesn't seem to be out yet.

Looks to me like casualty rates pretty much match up with the composition of the military, just like they did in Vietnam and everything in between. Having some exposure to the military and how they do business, I believe the US military is about the most color blind organization in our society.
Maybe. But since the topic compares the percentages of "races" killed by Bush's policies in Iraq, and some people here are trying to suggest some "races" are sacrificing more than others, it's important to compare the percentages in the subject line against percentages in American society.

 
Aug 10, 2001
10,425
1
0
I just wanted to demonstrate that the U.S. military is probably the most representative institution in the country. But I forgot that most of the people who post in this forum are hateful ideologues.
 

BOBDN

Banned
May 21, 2002
2,579
0
0
Originally posted by: Vespasian
I just wanted to demonstrate that the U.S. military is probably the most representative institution in the country. But I forgot that most of the people who post in this forum are hateful ideologues.
And I just wanted to represent that the poster above was misconstruing the facts when suggesting the "white" "race" was doing more than their part when in fact as a percentage they are under represented in being killed by Bush's policies in Iraq.

But I forgot that some of the people who post in this forum are hateful reactionaries. :)
 

KenGr

Senior member
Aug 22, 2002
725
0
0
Originally posted by: BOBDN

Maybe. But since the topic compares the percentages of "races" killed by Bush's policies in Iraq, and some people here are trying to suggest some "races" are sacrificing more than others, it's important to compare the percentages in the subject line against percentages in American society.
I don't see the reason for this to relate to society as a whole. If blacks join the military in greater numbers than their representation in the population that's because they think it's a good opportunity for them. Hispanics and Asians join in lower numbers because they think it's not a good choice. In many large cities, white firemen and policemen die in greater numbers than the population distribution would indicate because that's the makeup of the forces, in spite of years of affirmative action. When you pick a vocation, you get the risk with it. Being a miner or a construction worker have similar risks to being in the military.

And I don't see what Bush's policies have to do with this. We've lost more military in terrorist attacks (which have been cut drastically since 9/11) than in the Iraqi wars. Were the 243 marines killed in Lebanon killed by Reagan's policies or was it Carter?

 

daniel1113

Diamond Member
Jun 6, 2003
6,448
0
0
I wouldn't be surprised if Jesse Jackson starts to complain that "not enough African Americans are dying for their country, and that makes us a racist nation." What are these numbers trying to prove or show?
 

BOBDN

Banned
May 21, 2002
2,579
0
0
Originally posted by: KenGr
Originally posted by: BOBDN

Maybe. But since the topic compares the percentages of "races" killed by Bush's policies in Iraq, and some people here are trying to suggest some "races" are sacrificing more than others, it's important to compare the percentages in the subject line against percentages in American society.
I don't see the reason for this to relate to society as a whole. If blacks join the military in greater numbers than their representation in the population that's because they think it's a good opportunity for them. Hispanics and Asians join in lower numbers because they think it's not a good choice. In many large cities, white firemen and policemen die in greater numbers than the population distribution would indicate because that's the makeup of the forces, in spite of years of affirmative action. When you pick a vocation, you get the risk with it. Being a miner or a construction worker have similar risks to being in the military.

And I don't see what Bush's policies have to do with this. We've lost more military in terrorist attacks (which have been cut drastically since 9/11) than in the Iraqi wars. Were the 243 marines killed in Lebanon killed by Reagan's policies or was it Carter?

Let me try to make this as simple as possible.

The topic is White - 67%; Black - 16%; Hispanic - 13%; Asian - 2%

It refers to the percentages of people of "different races" killed so far in Iraq.

Happy Puppy then posted

You gotta admire us crackers. We're dumb enough to keep on rushing in where others fear to tread.

Seriously, I don't know what those stats mean. There are more whites over there in combat gear than any other race. What does it prove?
So I Googled figures for the percentage of "races" which make up the total US population to show that in truth the "white" race is under represented in combat deaths so far in Iraq. That's what it has to do with the percentages in society as a whole.

Bush's policies have everything to do with this because if he hadn't lied to the American people and allowed the UN inspectors to continue their inspections there is a very good chance those dead US troops would still be alive.


 

Ferocious

Diamond Member
Feb 16, 2000
4,584
1
71
I wonder what percentage of the dead are from the upper class?

Or even upper middle class?
 

BOBDN

Banned
May 21, 2002
2,579
0
0
Originally posted by: Ferocious
I wonder what percentage of the dead are from the upper class?

Or even upper middle class?
I know what percentage of US dead in Iraq are from the ruling class.

0%
 

Orsorum

Lifer
Dec 26, 2001
27,626
3
81
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: Ferocious
I wonder what percentage of the dead are from the upper class?

Or even upper middle class?
Why?

CkG
He is implying that the people making the decisions to go to war have nothing personal (i.e. children) vested in it.
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: Orsorum
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: Ferocious
I wonder what percentage of the dead are from the upper class?

Or even upper middle class?
Why?

CkG
He is implying that the people making the decisions to go to war have nothing personal (i.e. children) vested in it.
I know - I was just seeing if he had the balls to admit/clarify what he was trying to say/ask.
I would also like to know why social status has anything to do the sacrifice made by those who died.

CkG
 

Gaard

Diamond Member
Feb 17, 2002
8,911
0
0
I wouldn't think social status would have anything to do with their sacrifice. I wouldn't think ethnicity/race would either. I guess people are just curious.
 

KenGr

Senior member
Aug 22, 2002
725
0
0
The Iraqi and Afghanistan wars, in contrast to earlier wars are seeing a much more equal distribution of casualties between enlisted troops and officers. This is largely due to the increasingly technical nature of the conflict and the emphasis on special forces. Are they the "elite"? I don't really recognize that term relative to American society. However, they are largely college educated with tremendous futures ahead of them. There is no question that we are losing some of our best and brightest.

 

MonkeyK

Golden Member
May 27, 2001
1,396
8
81
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
Could you kindly provide evidence that the US military census during 1992-2000 was half the census of 1980-1988 . . . thnx.
I know you asked charrison but here is the DOD's numbers showing the significant decline in active military personnel.

ACTIVE COMPONENT ENLISTED FORCE
chart and totals of the same

1.82 million(1988) to 1.17 million(1998) Clinton left it at about 64% of Reagan's size. I consider that quite a significant drop;)
Enlisted Reserves also dropped about a quater million during the same time frame- from 988K to 745K.

CkG
Thanks for the numbers CkG.

But why compare Clinton's military to Reagan's? The link that CkG provided, shows that Bush Sr. started reducing the military. I believe that
1)We justified the build up of our military with the Cold War. The thought was that by bankrupting them by outspending the Soviets on defense, we would show the world that socialism was wrong.
2)When the Cold War ended, we did not need to be spending so much on the military. Bush started the cuts, Clinton continued them (I have no idea if it was to excess)
3)The administration fights for a budget, but most likely the folks within the military decide how it is spent (with the level of funding, is it more reasonable to invest in technology or more active personel)


 

ASK THE COMMUNITY